Minproc Technology Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

[1999] APO 4

OFFICIAL NOTICE

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Application  :          No. 646510 in the name of Minproc Technology Pty. Ltd.

Title:          Direct Sulphidization Fuming of Zinc

Action:          Opposition under section 59 by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Decision:          Issued            .

Abstract

Final determination. In a decision issued on 9 January 1998 it was found that certain claims lacked novelty and inventive step and did not comply with section 40 of the Patents Act. An appeal by the applicant against that decision is pending in the Federal Court. Amendments have been filed and allowed that overcome the deficiencies found in that decision.

The application is in order to proceed to grant once the appeal has been withdrawn.

PATENTS ACT 1990

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Re:Patent Application No. 646510 by Minproc Technology Pty. Ltd.; and an opposition under section 59 by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation.

DECISION

I issued a decision on the opposition to patent application 646510 on 9 January 1998. In that decision I found that certain claims lacked novelty and inventive step and did not comply with section 40 of the Patents Act. The applicant filed amendments in response to my decision. Those amendments have now been allowed. I consider that the amendments overcome the objections to the application that I raised in the decision.

The applicant has filed an appeal to the Federal Court against the decision issued on 9 January 1998.  As this appeal is pending, I cannot direct that the application proceeds to grant.   However, I have found that the deficiencies identified in the application have been overcome, and the application is in order to proceed to grant once the appeal has been withdrawn.

Brendan Bourke
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Patent attorneys for the applicant  :  Oberins Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks, Melbourne

Patent attorneys for the opponent  :  Davies Collison Cave, Melbourne