LifeSource Group Pty Ltd v Lambrini Dranganoudis - [2008] APO 22

ABSTRACTS OF DECISIONS

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Application : No. 2004253188 in the name of LAMBRINI DRANGANOUDIS

Title: Template System

Action: Opposition under section 59 of the Patents Act by LIFESOURCE GROUP PTY LTD

Decision: Issued 15 September 2008.
Abstract

The opposition was successful on the grounds of novelty and inventive step with respect to all claims of the application. This was the case irrespective of how the claims are interpreted or might be amended. The application was as a consequence refused.

PATENTS ACT 1990

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Re:Patent Application No. 2004253188 in the name of Lambrini Dranganoudis and opposition under section 59 of the Patents Act by LifeSource Group Pty Ltd

BACKGROUND

Patent application 2004253188 (the application) was filed on 1 July 2004 by Lambrini Dranganoudis (the applicant) under the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty claiming priority from provisional application 2003903349 filed on 1 July 2003. The application was advertised accepted on 19 January 2006.

LifeSource Group Pty Ltd (the opponent) filed a notice of opposition to the application on 19 April 2006 followed by a statement of grounds and particulars on 19 July 2006. The service of evidence in support was completed on 19 September 2007 after the opponent had been granted several extensions of time unopposed. The applicant did not serve any evidence in answer.

I heard the matter in Canberra on 17 June 2008. The opponent was represented by Mr Adam Hyland of Watermark who appeared by telephone. The applicant did not participate in the hearing, or file written submissions.

THE SPECIFICATION

The specification filed in respect of the application (the specification) indicates that the invention relates to the removal of unwanted body hair.

The specification explains that it has recently become fashionable among men and women to remove a portion of unwanted body hair so as to express some individuality by shaping the remaining hair into a recognisable pattern. The pattern may be expressed as a “positive” or “negative”, that is, as an area of exposed skin from which the hair has been removed surrounded by remaining hair, or as an area of hair surrounded by exposed skin from which the hair has been removed.

The shaping of a well defined recognisable pattern by the conventional application of depilatory agents is awkward. The invention seeks to address or ameliorate this drawback or to offer a useful alternative.

The specification summarises the invention in language which corresponds to that of claim 1. Notably, it refers to the removal of hair from the human body in a shaped pattern by means of a depilatory agent and a template.

The specification next describes various embodiments of the invention with reference to a series of drawings. In the first of these, the template comprises flexible sheeting made from paper or plastic which is placed over a part of the body such as the scalp and a…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read LifeSource Group Pty Ltd v Lambrini Dranganoudis and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] APO 22
Decision Date: 15 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of LifeSource Group Pty Ltd v Lambrini Dranganoudis, the applicant, Lambrini Dranganoudis, filed a patent application for a template system used in the removal of unwanted body hair. LifeSource Group Pty Ltd opposed the application, arguing that the invention lacked novelty and did not involve an inventive step. The opposition was heard by O L Haggar, a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents. The court found in favor of the opponent on the grounds of novelty and inventive step, and refused the application.

The court first considered the issue of claim construction. The court determined that the term "periphery" in claim 1 referred to the outer boundary of the flexible sheeting and that claim 1 encompassed only a negative template. The court then examined the issue of novelty, finding that the invention was not novel when compared to the prior art documents cited by the opponent. The court also found that the invention did not involve an inventive step when considered together with the common general knowledge and the prior art documents.

In summary, the court found that the invention as claimed in the application lacked novelty and did not involve an inventive step. As a result, the court refused the application and awarded costs to the opponent.

Orders