Joseph Lucas (Batteries) Limited v. Dunlop Australia Limited

[1983] APO 4

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952

‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Application
  No.491903 for Letters Patent by
  JOSEPH LUCAS (BATTERIES) LIMITED

‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Opposition thereto
  by DUNLOP AUSTRALIA LIMITED.

INTERIM DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:

This is an opposition to the grant of a patent in respect of an invention entitled "ELECTRIC STORAGE BATTERIES" by Joseph Lucas (Batteries) Limited claiming Convention priority based on a provisional patent specification lodged in Great Britain on 25 August 1973.  Acceptance of the application and complete specification was advertised in the Official Journal of 13 April 1978 and a Notice of Opposition to the grant of the patent was lodged by Dunlop Australia Limited on the 12 October 1978.

Hearing of the opposition took place in Canberra on 11 May 1982, the applicant being represented by Dr. M. Horner, Patent Attorney, of Griffith, Hassel & Frazer, and the opponent being represented by Mr. T. Barnes Patent Attorney of Edwd. Waters & Sons.

The grounds of opposition stated in the Notice are those available under paragraphs (c), (d),(e), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of sub‑section 59(1) of the Act.  The opponent did not pursue grounds (c) (d) and (f) and in my view they are not applicable.  The grounds of prior publication, want of novelty, obviousness and non‑compliance with section 40 of the Act remain for decision.

Locus standi of the opponent was conceded by the applicant.

The specification commences by stating that the invention relates to a method of making an electrical connection between battery plates in a pair of adjacent cell compartments of an electric storage battery, the compartments being separated by a partition wall.

In multi‑cell storage batteries of the kind to which the invention relates, each cell contains an assembly of side by side alternate positive and negative plates with a conductor bar connecting respectively the positive plates and the negative plates.  The plate assemblies in adjacent cells are electrically interconnected by a "through‑the‑partition" welded joint which is formed between the respective conductor bars.  According to the undisputed evidence it was common general knowledge in Australia at the priority date to form a through the partition intercell connection by having extensions on each conductor bar of each plate assembly which, when the plate assemblies were positioned in each cell, extended parallel to the cell partition and which, in adjoining cells, were positioned in opposition and in registry with an aperture extending through the partition.  A lateral spigot on one of the conductor bar extensions entered the aperture in the partition.  A pair of flat electrodes were then brought into contact with the "rear" surfaces of the extensions and moved relatively towards each other to bring the extensions into electrical contact with each other through the aperture by way of the spigot.  Thereafter a welding current was applied to the extensions through the electrodes to melt the extensions in the area of contact, so that the extensions were welded together and the molten extension material filled and sealed the aperture in the partition.  Movement of the electrodes was continued during the welding operation to maintain pressure contact between the electrodes and the extensions to promote the flow of molten material to fill the aperture and maintain the necessary electrical conditions for welding.

Variants of the above described method existed, however all commonly known procedures relied upon the use of flat electrodes in conjunction with a lateral spigot on at least one of the conductor bar extensions which had to be positioned within the aperture in the partition.

In contrast to the above method the invention proposes the use of welding electrodes of a particular construction to deform and extrude plane extensions of the battery plate conductor bars, situated on opposite sides of a partition wall, into a hole through the partition until the material of each extension engages within the hole.  The material is then fused to form an electrical through the partition intercell connection. 

In the specification a consistory clause, which is identical to claim 1 apart from its introductory wording, follows the opening paragraph and an embodiment of the invention as applied to a lead acid battery is then described in which a number of possible configurations for the welding electrodes are disclosed.  No prior art nor any objects of the invention are described.  The specification  concludes with 5 claims, all of which apart from an omnibus claim, are appended to claim 1.

Claim 1 reads :

1.A method of making an electrical connection between battery plates in a pair of adjacent cell compartments of an electric storage battery, the compartments being separated by a partition wall and the method comprising the steps of connecting the battery plates in the cell compartments to a pair of conductive bars respectively which at their ends adjacent the partition wall are formed with extensions extending substantially parallel to the partition wall, the partition wall being formed with a hole in registry with said extensions, locating a pair of welding electrodes adjacent the extensions respectively, each welding electrode having a major surface which is presented to its adjacent extension and which includes a projection having a part‑spherical or frusto‑conical end portion, the projection being rigidly connected to the major surface of the welding electrode imparting relative movement to the electrodes so that said major surfaces approach their respective extensions and the end portions of said projections engage and deform said extensions to cause the extensions to enter the hole in the partition wall, continuing said relative movement of the electrodes until the extensions have become so deformed that they engage one another through said hole in the partition wall and thereafter passing an electric current between said electrodes to cause said extension to melt so as to seal said hole and provide the required electrical connection between the battery plates.

The method according to claim 1 departs from the commonly known method(s) in two respects.  Firstly, flat electrodes are replaced by electrodes defined as having:

"a major surface which is presented to its adjacent extension and which includes a projection having a part spherical or frusto‑conical end portion, the projection being rigidly connected to the major surface of the welding electrode".  

Secondly, the need for a lateral spigot on at least one extension to establish the required contact between the extensions and through the partition is eliminated by causing the end portions of the projections on the electrodes to:

"engage and deform (the) extensions to cause the extensions to enter the hole in the partition wall..... until the extensions ..... engage one another through (the) hole"

The only limitation in claim 1 with respect to the shape of the projections, apart from functional requirements, is that they have a "part spherical" or "frusto‑conical" end portion.  This includes for example constructions with a "smooth" or "stepped" transition zone between the projection proper and the end portion and furthermore the radius of the part spherical portion may be large or small and the frusto‑conical portion may approach a full conical shape or it may be "short" and approach the shape of a cylinder.  Additionally, as only the general shape of the end portion of each projection is defined, the remainder of each projection may be any shape which is functionally suitable.

Although claim 1 has a very broad scope with respect to the shape of the projections, an understanding of the sizes and forces involved, and an advantage of the invention (which is the only advantage disclosed in the specification) are given in the following extract:

"In one practical embodiment, in which each (partition wall) hole 12a had a diameter of 8.73mm and each partition wall 12 had a thickness of 1.6mm, the frusto‑conical projection on each electrode 18, 19 was 1.8mm in height, defined an included angle of 90o, and had a free end surface of 4.24mm in diameter.  Using this arrangement, successful welds were produced between each pair of extensions 14a , 15a when the electrodes applied a pressure of 750‑850 lb. F. to the extensions and a welding current of 7500‑8500 amps was passed between the electrodes for 6‑7 cycles of a 50 cycle supply.

Using the apparatus described above, it is found that a satisfactory interconnection between a pair of extensions 14a,  15a can be produced even when there is a small degree of misalignment between the projections 21 of the welding electrodes and the hole 12a in the respective partition wall."

Advantages additional to the above are given for the invention in the evidence.  Thus Mr. M. Beasley for example, who is Research and Development Engineer for Lucas Batteries Limited, declares at paragraph 6(b) of his declaration:

"...... by using the Lucas method it is possible to use planar extensions which allow the plate assemblies to be mounted in the battery box without flexing the partition walls and without such accurate control over the location of the plate assembly as is required with extensions provided with lateral projections. In this respect, Lucas have found in practice that this method produces a satisfactory connection between a pair of extensions located in adjacent cell compartments even if one or both of the extensions is not centrally located relative to the hole in the partition wall between the compartments ....... .......  Further, since the Lucas method allows the use of planar extensions, the construction of the tools required for casting the conductor bars around the plate assemblies is greatly simplified as compared with extensions formed with lateral projections.  Similarly, the construction of the apparatus for assembling the plate packs into a battery box is simplified when the conductor bars are provided with planar extensions. "

Considering claim 1, Mr. Barnes for the opponent raised a large number of objections to its clarity.  For instance, he submitted that the definition was ambiguous with respect to the step of:

"connecting the battery plates in the cell compartments to a pair of conductive bars respectively";

as it did not define that only positive plates are connected to one bar and only negative plates to the other.  Another example he submitted was that it was not clear which face of "its adjacent extension" is presented with the major surface of each electrode.  Most of the objections raised are in my opinion based on a very literal interpretation of portions of the claim taken in isolation and they do not have any substance when the claim is construed as a whole.  In particular, the subject of the claim wherein electrical connection is to be made between plates in adjacent cell compartments, and interpretation of the claim in the context of the specification as a whole, and in the light of the common general knowledge in the art, negate the submissions of the opponent.

An issue in a different category to the above however concerns the definition of the electrodes and in particular the "major surfaces" thereof.  Mr. Barnes submitted that the property possessed by the surfaces, to qualify them as "major" surfaces is not clear and that the matter is not resolvable by reference to the function of the surfaces because the specification is completely silent in this regard.  He continued that the rigid connection of each projection to the major surface of each welding electrode is also not clear with respect to whether the projections are directly connected to the major surfaces and extend therefrom.

All of the declarants on behalf of the applicant comment on the role of the major surfaces of the electrodes in the method.  Thus Mr. Beasley
declares (at paragraph 7(e)):

".....the distance by which the projection extends from the major surface limits the approach of the pair of electrodes during welding and, at the end of the welding sequence, the major surface urges its associated extension against the partition wall to aid sealing of the hole in the partition wall.  Moreover, the major surface transmits both the welding current and the welding force to the extension."

Mr. A. Rajczi the Chief Engineer ‑ Battery Division of Lucas Australia declares at paragraph 9 of his declaration:

".. from my own practical experience, it would be necessary to provide some means whereby the mutual approach of the electrode projections could be controlled.  Thus, if no major face were provided on the electrodes, the projections could approach so closely as to almost touch under the high pressures involved unless some means of limiting the approach were provided.  It seems to me that the abutting of the major face of the electrodes against the normal surface of the extensions would provide a practical means of limiting the approach of the electrode projections."

And at paragraphs 24 and 25 he declares:

"... on the basis of my own considerable experience in this field it seems to me that the method of the patent‑in suit could probably not be successfully carried out unless "a major surface" were present.  In my view the major surface would be necessary: ‑

(a)To act as a stop to prevent overpressure caused by the electrodes approaching each other too closely.  If too much pressure is exerted, there is a danger that molten lead will be squirted out from the aperture in the inter cell wall.

(b)The major surface acts to press and seal the extensions around the edge of the aperture and thus also help prevent liquid lead being forced out of the aperture by the applied pressure.

There is in general a problem of avoiding molten lead from becoming squeezed out of the aperture during the welding process and thus leading to a faulty weld ....."

"..... whilst not being familiar with the practical operation of the method of the patent‑in‑suit, it does seem to me that the major surface might be expected to perform a vital function in preventing liquid lead from being squeezed out of the aperture during welding."

And finally, Mr. L. Dunham the General Manager of the Battery Division of ETABLISSEMENTS DANIEL DOYEN S.A. of Brussels, Belgium declares at paragraph 6(f) of his declaration:

"From my practical experience of intercell welding methods I have observed that the electrodes and therefore the major surfaces fulfill two functions.  Firstly they carry the welding current without overheating or burning and secondly they transmit the welding force, often in excess of 1000 lbs, faithfully to the extensions without buckling.  Therefore the cross‑section of the electrode, and hence the width of the major face will vary according to the width of the battery cell"

Clearly the electrodes must be of sufficient strength and size to transmit the required deforming force and welding current.  Also it is clearly possible that the surfaces in question could function to limit the mutual approach of the electrodes and urge the adjacent extensions against the partition wall as declared by both Mr. Beasley and Mr. Rajczi (which implies that the major surfaces are planar because normally the "rear" surfaces of the extensions will be flat), but an interpretation that they necessarily perform these functions (and are planar) is not possible because of the paucity of information in the specification concerning the major surfaces.  For example, in practical terms the usual configuration of the major surfaces will be planar, however other configurations are equally possible and are comprehended within the scope of claim 1.  Additionally I note that Mr. Dunham does not interpret the role of the major surfaces to be the same as declared by Mr. Beasley and Mr. Rajczi.

As the role of the major surfaces, apart from including the projections, is not disclosed no special meaning is attributable to the qualification "major" and the ordinary meaning of the term applies.  Given this, I interpret that the qualification "major" is simply an indication that the surfaces in question are the more important in the arrangement insofar as they are most related to the performance of the method, but this is only by virtue of the fact that they include the projections and are presented to the adjacent extensions.

I do not agree with the submission that the wording of claim 1 enables an interpretation wherein the projections are not directly connected to and do not extend from the major surfaces.  The structural and functional definition in claim 1 requires that the rigidly mounted projections point towards the "rear" surfaces of the adjacent extensions such that as the electrodes are moved together the projections will be forced into the rear of each extension causing the material thereof to deform into the hole in the partition wall until the opposed extensions contact within the hole.

Although the definition of the electrode projections is very broad, I am satisfied that claim 1 does comply with section 40.

In support of the grounds of prior publication and want of novelty the opponent lodged as part of its evidence copies of a number of Australian patent specifications, but only one of these (No. 448120 by the General Motors Corporation and referred to as the "G.M. specification") was relied upon by Mr. Barnes at the hearing.  I am satisfied that the others are not relevant.

The G.M. specification was published on 10 June 1971, that is, before the priority date of the claims in question and similarly to the present invention it discloses a method for forming a through‑the‑partition connection in a battery by a technique of extrusion and fusion under pressure.  At pages 3 and 4 it discloses :

"In this invention an extrusion‑fusion technique is employed for producing a resistance welded through‑the‑partition connection in electrical storage batteries, particularly lead‑acid storage batteries.  The method involves the basic steps of (1) press (2) extrude (3) fuse‑extrude (4) hold, and (5) release.  Battery plate straps of lead or lead based alloy are provided with upstanding lugs which are aligned opposite one another on either side of an aperture in a battery cell partition.  A pair of opposing hold‑down sleeves clamp the lugs into sealing engagement with that portion of the partition which surrounds the aperture.  A pair of extruder‑electrodes slide axially inside the sleeves and, under imposed pressure, extrude portions of each lug toward one another until they meet within the aperture and further extrusion ceases.  Current is caused to flow between the electrodes and through the extrusions.  The heat generated causes fusion of the interface between the two extrusions and softening of the metal thereabout.  Upon softening of the metal and under the same imposed pressure, further extrusion of the metal takes place until the extrusions fill the aperture, are in liquid‑tight, sealing engagement with the wall defining the aperture, and are fused together.  Only one lug need have an extruded portion but it has been found that extrusions on both lugs consistently produce sounder connections.  The current is finally shut off and the connector allowed to cool.

In one application, the hold down sleeves are described as causing the lugs to be pressed against the partition under a pressure of 250lbs and the extruder electrodes are caused to extrude the lugs under an imposed pressure of 1200 lbs.  Furthermore the hold down sleeves maintain their clamping force throughout the method, that is during the extrusion by the electrodes, the welding and the solidification stages.  Although not described, the figures illustrate the end portion of each extruder electrode as being frusto‑conical.

The differences between claim 1 and the disclosure in the G.M. specification are firstly that in the G.M. method, sleeves within which the extruder electrodes slide, are used to apply and maintain a clamping pressure on the extensions during the welding ‑ this is not specifically defined by, but is certainly included within the scope of claim 1; secondly the G.M. specification does not disclose each extruder‑electrode as being rigidly connected to a major surface.

Mr. Barnes submitted an ingenious argument that a skilled addressee would as a matter of course regard the extruder electrodes in the G.M. specification as being carried by major surfaces, or alternatively that the major surfaces are not an essential feature of the invention in question and could be ignored, and that the only real difference lies in the use of the clamping sleeves in the G.M. method. He continued that claim 1 does not exclude the possibility of utilising clamping sleeves and use of the method disclosed in the G.M. specification would be an infringement of claim 1 and that consequently claim 1 is not novel according to the test for novelty which was stated by Aicken J. in Meyers Taylor v. Vicarr Industries (13 ALR 605) at p.611. In contrast, the applicant argued that the claimed method is novel because the omission of the clamping sleeves enables a much simpler method of achieving the same result.

The flaw in the argument in support of novelty is that claim 1 does not exclude the use of clamping sleeves.  Thus the only feature in claim 1 which is not disclosed in the G.M. specification is the connection of the projections to major surfaces of the electrodes and in my opinion this difference does not confer novelty because, as previously indicated, the disclosure in the specification in question does not support an interpretation that the major surfaces perform any function in the method other than to simply carry the projections.  That is, the projections and not the major surfaces function to deform and extrude the material of the extensions into the hole in the partition wall and consequently the difference between Claim 1 and the G.M. disclosure does not satisfy the criteria for novelty as set out for example in the judgement of Dixon J. in Griffin V. Isaacs 1942 AOJP 739 at 740.

Claim 2 specifies that each end portion is frusto‑conical and defines an included angle of substantially 90o; claim 3 again specifies that each end portion is frusto‑conical and that each of the projections defines a frusto‑conical portion intermediate the end portion and the major surface; claim 4 defines a method substantially as described (which in effect makes it indistinguishable from claim 1) and claim 5 defines a battery containing an intercell connection made by a method according to any one of the preceding claims.  The description places no real emphasis on the variations and no additional feature is included which would alter the reasons for which I held claim 1 to be not novel ‑ thus I also consider claims 2 to 5 to be not novel.

The evidence shows that the Tiegel Manufacturing Company of Belmont California, U.S.A. were before the priority date of the claims in question, developing a new through‑the‑partition welding technique and machine (which enabled the use of flat conductor bar extensions as in the claimed method) and that visits were made to the Tiegel factory by representatives of different manufacturers in Australia.  Thus Mr. E. Nelson, who is Works Director of Century Batteries Limited of Alexandria N.S.W., visited the Tiegel factory in August 1969 and exhibit EN 3 is an extract from his notes on the visit.  The fifth paragraph of the extract reads:

"The Tiegels have patented or applied for a patent on a through the partition weld.  They have two flat circles of lead about 1" in diameter flat against the partition wall, the circles are about 0.1" in thickness and with pressure first, force a contact between the lead pieces through the hole, then resistance weld.  They claim to have a few trial batteries about."

When the precise wording in Mr. Nelson's declaration is considered however, it is not clear that he saw the actual method of forming the connection.  Certainly he seems to have been shown a battery incorporating an intercell connection, but not apparently its method of formation.

Mr. Nelson also tells of a visit to the Tiegel factory by a Mr J. Maunsell (a former Works Director of Century Batteries Limited) in April 1967 and he has put in evidence a drawing (exhibit EN 4) apparently obtained by Mr. Maunsell from the Tiegel Company.  This drawing shows a battery plate assembly before formation of a through‑the‑partition intercell connection in which the surface of the conductor bar extension is flat.  Two views of the finished connection are also included from which it is evident that the use of pressure was contemplated to force the conductor bar extensions into contact through an aperture in the cell partition.

Although Mr. Nelson's evidence shows that the "idea" upon which the invention is based was known, it does not on its own constitute a disclosure of the invention as is claimed because the "means" employed by the Tiegel Company for carrying out the "idea" is not revealed.  That is, the electrode construction used is a matter of conjecture.

Mr. L. Holden, who was Technical Services Manager of Chloride Batteries Australia Limited at the relevant time, and a Mr. M. Atkinson (the Marketing Director of Chloride) also visited the Tiegel factory in mid 1973 and exhibit LSH 2 is a copy of Mr. Holden's report on the visit which was prepared and circulated within the company on his return on 6th July 1973.  Section 3.2 of the report is headed "Through Partition Welding Machine" and its third paragraph reads:

"The most significant point about this machine is that it uses very simple intercell connectors with perfectly flat faces.  During the welding operation, pressure is applied to the outsides of the cell connectors by pins in the electrode head.  This sufficiently deforms the welding faces to start off a point of fusion normally achieved by casting a projection on the face."

A diagrammatic sketch of the machine then follows in which the "pins" referred to are shown by what I interpret to be a small conical, pyramidal or similarly shaped projection extending from the surface of each welding electrode.  Part 3 of the report under which the disclosure occurs is headed "Machinery Discussed or Seen" and Mr. Holden in his declaration does not clarify whether he saw or simply discussed the machine, nevertheless the report discloses the "idea" of the invention plus a "means" for performing it which is very similar to that claimed.

The applicant argued that the Holden disclosure could not be regarded as having been published in Australia on the basis that the information was given in confidence to Mr. Holden by the Tiegel Company and because it was kept within the Chloride Company.  The allegation of confidentiality is based on evidence from the applicant that the Tiegel Company was selective of persons to whom details of its through the partition welding machine and method were disclosed, which is confirmed by Mr. R. Tiegel, the President of the Tiegel Manufacturing Company.  Further aspects of the matter are that Mr. Holden does not directly clarify the circumstances of the disclosure and the allegation of confidentiality is not refuted by any of the persons concerned (Mr. Holden, Mr. Atkinson or Mr. Tiegel) in the opponent's evidence in reply, all of which according to the applicant is strong circumstantial evidence that the disclosure to Mr. Holden was made in confidence.

On the other hand Mr. Holden's report states that the Tiegel machine is selling extremely well, quotes a price and requests a Mr. T.F. McLean, the Industrial Engineering Manager of Chloride Batteries Australia Limited, to consider and decide on a follow up.  Additionally Mr. Tiegel declares that the first order for the machine (the subject of U.S.A. Patent No. 4013864) was received in March 1972 and that up to August 1973 (the priority date) 8 machines had been sold.  That is, the machine was available commercially in the U.S.A. and extrapolating from Mr. Holden's report, an "offer for sale" appears to have been made to Chloride Batteries Australia Limited through Mr. Holden.

According to the normal civil standard of proof which is applicable, that is, on the balance of probability (Dunlop Holdings Application (1979) RPC 523), I consider the argument that the disclosure made to Mr. Holden was confidential to be negated by the commercial availability of the machine because the evidence in support of confidentiality is circumstantial only whereas there is direct evidence of the commercial activity.

I add that the Tiegel machine, the subject of U.S.A. Patent No. 4013864 and the Holden disclosure differ in respect of the shape of the projections, but this fact does not affect the above reasoning in respect of the non‑confidentiality of the disclosure to Mr. Holden. Also the disclosure which is relevant to the issues of prior publication and want of novelty is that contained in Mr. Holden's report for although he gained the information in the U.S.A., it remains that he brought it to Australia on behalf of Chloride Batteries Australia Limited before the priority date and, in accordance with the Bristol‑Myer's Company's Application (1969) RPC 146 that information was therefore published in Australia. That is, the information was in the possession of a member of the public in Australia before the priority date without any obligation to keep it secret ‑ its non‑distribution outside the Chloride Company is not relevant.

Mr. Holden's report inherently discloses a method, plus an apparatus for performing it which closely resembles that claimed.  The only difference is that according to claim 1 the projections included by the major surfaces have a part spherical or frusto‑conical end portion whereas in the Holden disclosure the projections are referred to as "pins" and in the sketch are shown as being of conical, pyramidal or similar shape.  The surfaces shown in the sketch and from which the projections extend, are "major surfaces" according to the interpretation I previously reached for this term.  Thus the question is whether the shape for the projections which is claimed confers novelty.  However as is indicated above, claim 1 simply defines two general shapes for the end portions of the projections and its scope includes for instance a frusto‑conical shape which is very nearly a full cone.  In other words claim 1 includes within its scope shapes for the projections which do not appreciably differ from that which is disclosed.  Additionally the specification does not describe any advantages for the two shapes which are claimed with respect to other possible shapes.  In fact the specification is completely silent on why the frusto‑conical or part‑spherical shape as defined in claim 1 is chosen and this, coupled with the fact that the specification discloses a number of alternative shapes for the end portions of the projections is indicative that the general shape of the end portion is not critical to the performance of the method.  Consequently, applying Justice Dixon's test for novelty from Griffin v. Isaacs (supra) I am of the opinion that the variation in question consists in a matter which makes no substantial contribution to the working of the invention and that the method defined by claim 1 does not have any merit greater than that of the prior disclosure ‑ the difference thus does not give novelty to claim 1.

I also consider claims 2 to 5 (the subject matter of each of which is indicated above) to be not novel with respect to the Holden report because the scope of the frusto‑conical or part spherical end portion is not significantly restricted from the constructions within the scope of claim 1 and furthermore, as previously indicated, the description places no real emphasis on the variations and no additional feature is included which could confer novelty.

The opponent's ground of opposition that the invention as claimed is obvious is not substantiated because the matter which is proven to be common general knowledge differs significantly from the claimed method, as is set out at the start of this decision; additionally none of the evidence relating to electrodes which extrude plane conductor bar extensions into a hole in the partition wall is proven to be common general knowledge.

In summary I find that the opposition succeeds on the ground that the invention as claimed in all claims is not novel in the light of the Australian patent specification No. 448120 (exhibit EN5 and JCH 3) and exhibit LSH2 (the Holden report).  Also claim 4, because it is of the same scope as claim 1, does not comply with section 40.  Despite the forgoing conclusions there may be patentable subject matter disclosed in the specification, accordingly I allow the applicant an opportunity to seek leave to amend the specification within 60 days of this interim decision.  An award of costs is at this stage reserved.

G.D. CARMICHAEL

Supervising Examiner of Patents