L. Church Holdings (Australia) Pty Ltd v Marine Propulsion Ltd

[1993] APO 74

OFFICIAL NOTICE

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Application        :  No. 567598 in the name of
L. CHURCH HOLDINGS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD

Title:  RING PROPELLER

Action: Opposition under Section 59 (1952 Act) by MARINE PROPULSION LTD, final decision following amendments

Decision:  Issued            . 

Fair Basis (see previous decision dated 23 May 1991), application amended, amendments allowed and application to proceed to sealing.

PATENTS ACT 1990

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Re:Patent Application No. 567598 by L. CHURCH HOLDINGS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD and Opposition by MARINE PROPULSION LTD under section 59 of the Patents Act 1952

BACKGROUND

In his decision in this matter dated 23 May 1991, the delegate found that the opposition was successful on the ground that the specification did not comply with section 40, [1952 Act].  However, the delegate afforded the applicant an opportunity to overcome this deficiency.

The applicant duly filed a request to amend on 17 July 1991.  Following examination action, the request was advertised in the Official Journal on 30 January 1992.  In the absence of opposition, this request was allowed on 22 May 1992 and the specification amended at that time in accordance with the request.  The applicant filed a further request to amend on 7 October 1992, which was advertised in the Official Journal on 10 June 1993 following examination action.  In the absence of opposition, this later request was allowed on 13 October 1993 and the specification amended at that time in accordance with the request.

In accordance with office practice, the opponent was invited to comment on the specification as amended, but no response was received.  I am therefore in a position to finalize the opposition.

DECISION

I am satisfied that the amendments to the complete and specification remove the ground of opposition which the delegate found applicable in his earlier decision.  Therefore, subject to no appeal, I direct that the application and complete specification as amended proceed to sealing.

(LEO. J. O'KEEFFE)
A/Assistant Commissioner of Patents

Patent attorneys for the applicant  :  Grant Adams & Co, Brisbane

Patent attorneys for the opponent   :  Shelston Waters, Sydney