Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Softex Industries Pty Ltd

[2001] APO 39

OFFICIAL NOTICE

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Application   :          No. 686247 in the name of KIMBERLY-CLARK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Title:          Method and Apparatus to Manufacture a Towel or Tissue Stack

Action:          Opposition by SOFTEX INDUSTRIES PTY LTD under Section 104 of the Patents Act 1990

Decision:          Issued

Abstract

This decision is in respect of a section 104 request to amend a complete specification. The application is currently undergoing section 59 opposition. All evidence has been served in that opposition, but it has not yet been heard. Subsequent to the filing of evidence in reply in the section 59 opposition, the applicant filed the request to amend under section 104 which culminated in the present opposition. No evidence was served in this opposition. The opponent, who is different from the opponent in the section 59 opposition, alleged that the amendments did not meet the requirements of section 40, introduced matter not in substance disclosed in the specification as filed and resulted in the claims not being within the scope of the claims prior to the amendment.

The amendments were found to be not allowable in two respects, both of which involved clarity.  Firstly, there was some mis-numbering of appendancies resulting from a failure to take into account some renumbering of the claims which had taken place as a result of the amendment.  Secondly, an omnibus claim was inaptly worded.  One other alleged instance of a lack of clarity was not upheld.

A causative relationship purportedly defined by the proposed Claim 1 and said to be not fairly based, to be not in substance disclosed and to result in the claims not falling within the scope of the claims prior to amendment was found to not arise when Claim 1 was properly construed.  An allegation of a lack of fair basis arising because certain embodiments falling within the scope of the claimed invention had not been fully described was held to be not sustained and potentially more within the realm of sufficiency and utility (and thus requiring evidence) than fair basis.

Costs were awarded against the applicant.

PATENTS ACT 1990

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Re:Patent Application No. 686247, in the name of KIMBERLY-CLARK AUSTRALIA PTY LTD and an opposition by SOFTEX INDUSTRIES PTY LTD under Section 104 of the Patents Act 1990.

BACKGROUND

Patent Application No. 686247 in the name of Kimberley-Clark Australia Pty Ltd was advertised accepted on 5 February 1998. The application was opposed by ABC Tissue Products Pty Limited. Subsequent to all evidence having been served, but prior to the opposition being heard, the applicant filed a request to amend the specification under section 104 of the Patents Act. The granting of leave by the Commissioner to make these amendments was advertised on 20 April 2000. A new party, Softex Industries Pty Ltd (hereinafter "the opponent"), opposed the allowing of the amendments, and served its Statement of Grounds and Particulars on 19 October 2000. No evidence was served in relation to the opposition to the amendment.

The hearing on the opposition to the amendment took place in Canberra on 26 July 2001.  Both parties appeared by telephone.  The applicant was represented by Mr Greg Turner, patent attorney of Spruson & Ferguson, Sydney.  The opponent was represented by Mr Claude Anese, patent attorney of Cullen & Co., Brisbane.

THE SPECIFICATION

The specification as cast before the proposed amendment laid claim to a tissue or towel stack, a method of producing a tissue or towel stack and a machine to produce a tissue or towel stack.  The tissues and towels in question are, I gather, of the "paper type", as in the so-called "box of tissues" which finds widespread use.  As a consequence of the amendment, the specification (presumably in the face of the evidence adduced in the substantive opposition) would be reduced to claiming only the machine to produce a tissue and towel stack.

The machine as it is described in the specification is a relatively simple one, although clearly it may be considerably more complex in realisation.  It takes a roll of material and, in a continuous operation, cuts it into equal lengths (referred to as leaves), overlaps successive leaves and then folds the resultant sequence of leaves for placement in a typical towel or tissue dispenser or for wrapping.

The specification, as proposed to be amended, consists of six claims (improperly headed "Claims" then "Apparatus Claims"), with Claim 1 as the only independent claim apart from an omnibus claim, Claim 6.  Claim 1 as proposed to be amended corresponds to Claim 9 before amendment, but with some changes of wording which are clearly intended to at least have the appearance of narrowing the scope somewhat.  Claim 1, as proposed to be amended, with variations from present Claim 9 as shown, reads:

"1. A machine to produce a towel or tissue stack, each stack having a plurality of leaves, with each leaf consisting of at least three panels, said machine comprising:

a cut off roll which receives a continuous web of towel or tissue material and transversely cuts the web to form discrete leaves of a predetermined length;

a lap roll to which the discrete leaves are delivered to arrange the leaves so that adjacent leaves overlap;

a retard roll cooperating with the lap roll to overlap adjacent leaves;

a folding roll assembly which transversely folds each leaf to form at least three panels, with overlapping portions of adjacent leaves forming discrete panels; and wherein

the assemblysaid machine is adapted to effectively accommodate one of the tissues between the lap roll and retard roll so that the assembly folds each leaf is folded so as to have a first set of panels comprising two adjacent panels, including an end panel, folded between a second set of panels comprising two adjacent panels, including an end panel, of an adjacent leaf, with the leaves being substantially identical and the panels of each leaf being substantially the same size and shape."

Claims 2 to 5, as proposed to be amended, are worded the same as the Claims 10 to 13 currently appended to Claim 9.  This holds even for their appendancy, a circumstance upon which the opposition to the amendments is partly founded.  Proposed Claims 2 to 5 are:

"2. The machine of claim 9, wherein the lap roll is adapted to raise the trailing portion of each leaf so that the leading portion of the next leaf can be located beneath the raised trailing portion.

3. The machine of Claim 10, wherein the lap roll and retard roll are spaced apart by a distance less than said predetermined length.

4. The machine of claim 11, further including fingers located between the lap roll and retard roll against which the leaves buckle under the action of the lap roll forcing the leaves against the fingers.

5. The machine of claim 10, wherein the lap roll and the retard roll are spaced by a distance approximately equal to said predetermined length."

Proposed Claim 6 is an omnibus claim.  It reads:

"6. A machine to produce a towel or tissue stack according to Figure 2, 4 and 5, or Figure 3."

It varies considerably from its corresponding claim of the present claims, which is:

"16.  A machine to produce a tissue stack, substantially as hereinbefore described with reference to figure 2 or Figure 3."

THE STATEMENT OF GROUNDS AND PARTICULARS

I will set the Statement of Grounds and Particulars out in full.  It reads:

"1.       Ground:         As a result of the amendment, the specification would not comply with subsection 40(3). [Subsection 102(b)]

Particulars:

(i)Proposed claim 1 is not clear in its reference to 'to effectively accommodate one of the tissues'.

(ii)Proposed claims 2 to 5 are not clear as they are appended to claims which would not exist if the amendment is made.

(iii)Proposed claim 1 is not fairly based on the matter described in the specification.  The words 'so that' in the last paragraph of proposed claim 1, as now used in the context of the amended claim, state that as a result of adapting the machine 'to effectively accommodate one of the tissues between the lap roll and retard roll', the assembly would fold each leaf to have a first set of panels …etc.  This is not what is taught by the description.  The folding configuration does not result because 'one of the tissues' is accommodated between the lap roll and the retard roll.

(iv)Proposed claim 1 is not fairly based on the matter described in the specification.  In order to achieve the fold configuration as now defined in the last paragraph of proposed claim 1 in a tissue stack having leaves each with five panels, leaves must be fed alternately above and below the preceding leaf before folding.  The description only discloses inserting the leading portion of a leaf below the tail end of the next formed leaf.  (Similar comments may apply to leaves with other odd numbers of panels).

(v)Proposed claims 3 and 4, if appended to proposed claim 1, would not be fairly based on the description.

(vi)Proposed claim 3, if appended to proposed claim 1, would be inconsistent with claim 1.

(vii)The reference in proposed claim 1 to 'effectively accommodate one of the tissues' includes a spacing between the lap and retard rolls much greater than 'one of the tissues'.  This wider reference is not fairly based on the description.

2.        Ground:As a result of the requested amendment, the specification would claim matter not in substance disclosed in the specification as filed. [Subsection 102(1)]

Particulars:

The specification as filed did not disclose accommodating 'one of the tissues' between the lap roll and the retard roll so that so that the assembly folds each leaf to have a first set of panels comprising two adjacent panels, including an end panel, folded between a second set of panels comprising two adjacent panels, including an end panel of an adjacent leaf.

3.        Ground:As a result of the amendment, a claim of the specification would not in substance fall within the scope of the claims of the specification before amendment. [Subsection 102 (2)(a)]

Particulars:

Prior to the amendment, the 'assembly' was adapted so that each leaf is folded …etc, whereas following the amendment, the 'machine' is adapted … so that it folds each leaf …etc."

SUBMISSIONS

Both parties provided written submissions in addition to their oral submissions made at the hearing.

Mr Anese's submissions kept closely to the statement of grounds and particulars but with some elaboration, an example being some drawings illustrating that, for leaves with an odd number of panels, successive overlappings would have to alternate between being above and below the following leaf in order, in terms of Claim 1,

"to have a first set of panels comprising two adjacent panels, including an end panel, folded between a second set of panels comprising two adjacent panels, including an end panel, of an adjacent leaf".

The only substantial deviation by Mr Anese's submissions from the statement of grounds and particulars was to not rely on Ground 3 "due to difficulty in interpreting the scope of the amended portion of claim 1".  However, I was "invited to consider whether the proposed amended claim 1 would include within its scope an arrangement not covered by the claim prior to amendment".

Mr Turner began by attempting to rationalize the reference to "tissues" in the phrase "to effectively accommodate one of the tissues" as being equivalent to a reference to "a tissued leaf".  He then explained in some detail the basis for, and meaning of, the expression "effectively accommodate".

With respect to the need to vary the way successive leaves are overlapped when odd numbers of panels are involved (Particular (iv) of Ground 1), Mr Turner stated:

"It is conceivable that a tissue stack could be constructed with the trailing portion below the leading portion of the next adjacent leaf.  To support their proposition the Opponent would need to have evidence establishing that such was not a viable alternative to the construction currently presented in the specification.

If, as the opponent has suggested, this is an absurd alternative, then clearly the skilled addressee would discard such an alternative."

In respect of the second ground, Mr Turner noted references in the description that provided clear support for the proposed amendments, and in respect of the third ground he asserted that every feature of present Claim 1 is to be found in Claim 1 as proposed to be amended.

I will provide more details of the parties' submissions, where relevant, later in my decision.

DECISION

Law

The allowability of an amendment to a complete specification is governed by section 102, which in relation to a standard patent provides:

"102. (1) An amendment of a complete specification is not allowable if, as a result of the amendment, the specification would claim matter not in substance disclosed in the specification as filed.

(2) An amendment of a complete specification is not allowable after the relevant time if, as a result of the amendment,

(a) a claim of the specification would not in substance fall within the scope of the claims of the specification before amendment; or

(b) the specification would not comply with subsection 40(2) or (3).

(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), relevant time means:

(a) in relation to an amendment proposed to a complete specification relating to a standard patent - after the specification has been accepted
•
•
•
•
•

(3) This section does not apply to an amendment for the purpose of correcting a clerical error or obvious mistake made in, or in relation to, a complete specification."

In accordance with regulation 5.3(4), these are the only grounds on which the allowance of a proposed amendment of a complete specification relating to a standard patent may be opposed.

Section 40(2) requires that a complete specification describe the invention fully, including the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention, and end with a claim or claims defining the invention.  Section 40(3) requires the claim or claims to be clear and succinct and fairly based on the matter described in the specification.

It is clear from section 102 that the test provided by section 102 is confined to matters which arise as a result of the amendment (see also Kornelis' Kunsthars Producten Industrie BV v WR Grace & Co-Conn, (1994) AIPC 91-056 at 38,204). Furthermore, as I have already stated, in accordance with regulation 5.3(4) the only grounds for opposition to allowance of a proposed amendment of a complete specification is that the amendment does not comply with section 102. It therefore follows from the combined operation of these provisions that any pre-existing section 40 deficiencies which are not related to the amendment are not material to the present matter.

Paragraph 102(2)(b)

The first issue raised by the opponent under this head is that the reference to "the tissues" in the final paragraph of the claim is not clear.  Mr Anese stated that if you read the specification as a whole you would assume that the reference to "the tissues" was meant to be a reference to "the leaves" referred to earlier in the claim.  He went on to say that a person reading the specification should not have to guess or assume what was meant - the claim should be clear.  However, he then conceded that the patent would not be invalid because of this point, but the opportunity should be taken to make the claim as clear as possible in the public interest.

Mr Anese's concession renders this point pretty much a non-issue.  However, for the sake of completeness, I note that, as stated by Lord Shaw in B.T.H. v Corona Lamps 39 RPC 49,

"A specification must take its rank among all ordinary documents which are submitted to a reader for his guidance or instruction, and a reader ordinarily intelligent and versed in the subject matter.  Such a reader must be supposed to bring his stock of intelligence and knowledge to bear upon the document, not unduly to struggle with it, but anyhow to make the best of it."

I also note that in Rosedale Associated Manufacturers Ltd v Carlton Tyre Saving Co Ltd [ 1960] RPC 59 at 69 it is stated

"It is clearly ... legitimate and appropriate in approaching the construction of claims to read the specification as a whole.  Thereby the necessary background is obtained and in some cases the meaning of the words used in the claims may be affected or defined by what is said in the body of the specification"

Moreover one should, if possible, reject the meaning that leads to an absurd result (Henriksen v Tallon Ltd [1965] RPC 434) and one should read the specification liberally and be "willing and wishing" to understand the specification (Philpot v Hanbury (1885) 2 RPC 33).

While it is well established law that, for clarity of the claims per Section 40(3) of the Patents Act 1990, the claims must define clearly and with precision the monopoly claimed so that the exact boundaries may be known - Electric and Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd (1938) 56 RPC 23 at 39, and Australian Solar Mesh Sales v Tomlin Industries 21 IPR 447 - in my view it is clear on the face of the specification that the reference to "the tissues" in proposed Claim 1 is an obvious mistake, and it should instead read "leaves". I therefore conclude that Claim 1 achieves a satisfactory level of clarity in this regard, although, like Mr Anese, I consider it preferable that the addressee of the specification did not have to cope with hindrances of this nature when construing the specification.

In regard to the second aspect in which the opponent alleges that the proposed amendments result in non-compliance with section 40(3) due to lack of clarity - that of the incorrect appendancies of Claims 2 to 5 - I think the opponent is on more solid ground.  While it is perhaps clear once one is acquainted with all the background to this matter just which are the claims that Claims 2 to 5 are intended to be appended to, this is not ascertainable from the specification on its own.  Mr Anese also made the valid point that the applicant had had ample opportunity to remedy this defect in the amendment, but had made no attempt to do so.  Furthermore, I took it from comments made by Mr Turner at the hearing that he virtually conceded the opponent's position on this issue.  I therefore find that Claims 2 to 5 are not clear as to which claims they are appended.

There is one other aspect in which I consider the claims would lack clarity as a result of the proposed amendment, and that is in respect of the wording of the omnibus claim.  (This issue was not canvassed by the opponent.)  The wording used departs from that usually found in an omnibus claim by omitting the phrase "as hereinbefore described with reference to", or the like.  The absence of those words, in my view, causes it to be not clear that the claim relies on what is described in the description part of the specification for its scope.

The other footing upon which the opponent contends that the amendments result in non-compliance with section 40(3) is that of there being a lack of fair basis of the claims upon the description.  The fundamental requirement to be met in order for a claim to be fairly based on the matter described in the specification in accordance with sec 40(3) is that the specification must contain a "real and reasonably clear disclosure of the subject matter of the claim" - see CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd 28 IPR 481 and (1994) AIPC 91-079, and Sartas No. 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou & Partners Pty Ltd and Nicola Leonardis 30 IPR 479 and (1995) AIPC 91-121. In assessing this criterion I believe that the general considerations I have referred to above as applying to whether the claims are sufficiently clear - which basically require a commonsense approach be taken to the construction of a patent specification - are also relevant to fair basis.

The opponent firstly alleges that proposed Claim 1 lacks fair basis because the words "so that" in the last paragraph of the claim imply a causative relationship between the matter following those words and the effective accommodation of one of the leaves between the lap roll and the retard roll, but that this is not what is described by the specification.

I should perhaps state at this point that initially I had some misgivings about the clarity of the expression "effectively accommodate".  However the opponent did not express any specific concerns in this regard, apparently content to place a broad construction on the words in question.  The applicant had a similar position.  I have therefore come to the conclusion that that construction is a valid one and the claim is clear, but I will observe that the whole phrase of "to effectively accommodate one of the tissues between the lap roll and retard roll" probably only makes explicit what is already implicitly defined in the claim.  With the lap roll and retard rolls being successive stations in a machine performing a number of operations in a continuous fashion, it would seem to go without saying that a leaf would be "effectively accommodated" between them.
If that was all there was to that feature, its inclusion in the claim would perhaps be a little curious, but inconsequential.  For example, in A.M.P. Incorporated v the Commissioner of Patents (1974) AOJP 3224 at 3227 Jacobs J of the High Court stated that:

"Although the Act does not now expressly say so, it is clear that within the limited framework which I have described an amendment [to a claim] may be allowed where it does no more than explain what is already in the claim when it is properly construed."

The "Act" to which Jacobs J is referring is the Patents Act 1952, but his comments are also relevant to the 1990 Act.

However the words "said machine is adapted to effectively accommodate one of the tissues between the lap roll and retard roll" cannot to be read in isolation.  In particular they are to be read in conjunction with the subsequent words, namely "so that ….etc".  Now, the opponent asserts that the words "so that" should be read as defining a causative relationship, that is, as defining that the matter following those words is dependent or consequential upon what goes before those words, and the opponent further argues that there has been no description of such a relationship in the specification.  While I think it possible to argue that there actually is a causative relationship described in the specification, putting that issue aside I consider the opponent's approach to be flawed on a more fundamental level.  This is that the words "so that" are not to be read as conveying a dependancy or consequence, but are to be read as imposing a qualification upon the subject matter that has preceded them.  This qualification is achieved by so-called "defining by result", for which No-Fume Ltd v Frank Pitchford & Co Ltd (1935) 52 RPC 231 is the commonly cited authority. Absent the causitive relationship discerned by the opponent, the opponent's allegation of a lack of fair basis arising from that causative relationship cannot be sustained.

The opponent secondly contends that Claim 1 is not fairly based because the claim includes within its scope various arrangements (specifically, leaves having an odd number of panels and the spacing between the lap roll and retard roll being greater than the length of a leaf) which are not described in the specification.

I accept as correct Mr Anese's assertion that, where the leaves to be stacked have an odd number of panels, then in order to achieve the interleaving defined in the proposed Claim 1 successive overlappings would have to alternate between being above and below the following leaf.  It is also true that no embodiment possessing this feature is described.  The basis of Mr Anese's allegation of a lack of fair basis in this regard would appear to be that the claims omit to define an essential feature of the invention, namely that the leaves comprise an even number of folds.  However nowhere in the specification is there any suggestion that a requirement for an even number of folds is intended to be an essential feature of the invention.  The preferred embodiment has six, but no limitation is intimated.

Similarly, nowhere in the specification is it suggested that it is essential that the spacing between the lap roll and retard roll cannot be greater than the length of a leaf.  In fact, Mr Turner proffered the quite plausible explanation that it all came down to the speed of the retard roll - presumably if this is rotating slowly enough then a spacing of greater than the length of a leaf becomes a practical possibility.

Furthermore, I consider that each and every feature defined in the claims is described by the specification, a fact which, as I understand it, the opponent does not contest.  There is therefore no doubt in my mind that a "real and reasonably clear disclosure" of the invention defined by Claim 1 can be said to have occurred in the specification, and that Claim 1 fully meets the requirement of fair basis.

Mr Anese also alleged that Claims 2 to 5 lack fair basis for the same reasons as Claim 1.  Since I have found those reasons not persuasive in relation to Claim 1, the same will apply in respect of Claims 2 to 5.  Finally, Mr Anese questioned how in Claim 3 the lap roll and retard roll could be spaced apart by a distance less than the length of a leaf and still effectively accommodate a leaf, but I think this is accounted for by the broadness of the term "accommodate" and the further broadening effect of the term "effectively" upon "accommodate".

For the sake of completeness I will add that much of Mr Anese's argument in regard to fair basis, while raised under the ground of fair basis, seemed more suited to a ground of insufficiency or lack of utility.  Mr Anese was correct in saying that, where issues relating to the interpretation of the specification are involved (such as with fair basis), these are issues of law and do not require evidence to sustain (although expert evidence will often come into play).  However where questions of insufficiency and lack of utility are involved, evidence will usually be required to establish these conditions, and I certainly feel that this is so in the present matter as regards sufficiency (utility not being for consideration in these proceedings).  In relation to the issue of the number of panels per leaf, this is especially the case in light of, firstly, the fact that Mr Anese himself appears to had no difficulty in appreciating, in general terms, how the machine of the present invention needs to be altered to cater for leaves with odd-numbered panels and, secondly, the relative simplicity of the machinery involved.

I therefore find that no lack of fair basis arises as a result of the proposed amendment.

Subsection 102(1)

In RGC Mineral Sands Pty Ltd v Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd 42 IPR 353, the full Federal Court said that a "two stage" process must be followed when determining whether a proposed amendment satisfies the test for allowability imposed by section 102(1). The first stage, which requires a comparison between the specification as it stands immediately before the amendment and how it would stand after amendment, enables the identification of what matter results from the amendment. Once the matter resulting from the amendment has been identified, that matter is compared with the specification as filed in order to determine whether the specification would claim matter not in substance disclosed in the specification as filed. The court when discussing the second stage emphasised that:

"The subsection [102(1)] focuses on the amendment proposed and it must be that amendment which has the result of pushing the claimed matter over the line defined by the expression 'matter not in substance disclosed in the specification as filed'.  The key point to keep in mind is that the words 'as a result of the amendment' are not to be confused with the expression 'after the amendment'."

The test for whether an amended claim would claim matter not in substance disclosed in the specification as filed is essentially the same "real and reasonably clear" test for whether the claims are fairly based on the matter described in the specification (United-Carr Incorporated's Application [1971] RPC 23, Ethyl Corporation's Patent [1972] RPC 169 at page 195).

Turning now to the circumstances of the present matter, in relation to this ground the opponent contends that the specification as filed did not disclose accommodating one of the leaves between the lap roll and the retard roll so that the assembly folds each leaf to have a first set of panel comprising two adjacent panels, including an end panel, folded between a second set of panels comprising two adjacent panels, including an end panel, of an adjacent leaf.  The arguments advanced by the opponent on this are the same as were used when arguing a lack of fair basis for this feature, and rely upon a construction of the wording of the feature which I have rejected when dealing with the fair basis issue.  When properly construed there is no question in my mind that, consistent with my finding as to fair basis, this feature is in substance disclosed in the specification as filed.  I therefore find that the proposed amendments comply with subsection 102(1) of the Patents Act.

Paragraph 102(2)(a)

The opponent contends that amended Claim 1 would not fall within the scope of present Claim because, whereas before amendment the claim reads "the [folding roll] assembly is adapted so that ….", after amendment the claim would read "said machine is adapted ……… so that the assembly ….".  Given that the folding roll assembly is part of the machine, so that any adaptation to the assembly is in effect an adaptation to the machine, I fail to see how the use of the latter mode of expression can be said to cause the scope of the claim to be substantially outside of the scope of the claim when the former mode of expression is used.  I see the second set of words as clearly being tantamount to saying that the assembly is adapted.  I therefore find that the proposed amendments comply with paragraph 102(2)(a) of the Patents Act.

CONCLUSION

I have found that the proposed amendment does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 102(2)(b), and therefore I uphold the opposition to the amendment and refuse the amendment.

COSTS

The power of the Commissioner to award costs is based on section 210 and regulation 22.8.  The power to award costs is discretionary, so I must take into account all relevant considerations (see American National Can Company v W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn (1994) AIPC 91-063, 30 IPR 292).

In the present case the opposition was successful on the ground that as a result of the amendment the specification would not comply with subsection 40(3).  The deficiency introduced into the specification by the amendment that was identified by the opponent was minor, but was not insignificant.  Of some concern is the fact that the applicant has made no attempt to remedy this very obvious deficiency upon which the opposition has been upheld, notwithstanding a long period of time having elapsed since it was brought to its attention.  In my opinion the circumstances of this matter justify costs being awarded against the applicant.

Accordingly, I award costs in this matter against the applicant Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd.

E J Knock
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Patent Attorneys for the applicant :      Spruson & Ferguson, Sydney

Patent Attorneys for the opponent :     Cullen & Co., Brisbane