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The application is in order to proceed to grant once the appeal has been withdrawn.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in the application have been overcome, and the application is in order to proceed to grant once the appeal has been withdrawn.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
- AGLC
- Minproc Technology Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation [1999] APO 4
- Case
- [1999] APO 4
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the court was required to decide involved whether the patent claims met the statutory criteria for novelty, inventive step, and compliance with section 40 of the Patents Act. The decision of 9 January 1998 found that certain claims lacked novelty and inventive step and did not comply with section 40. Following this decision, Minproc Technology Pty Ltd made amendments to its patent application. These amendments were subsequently allowed, and the delegate of the Commissioner of Patents found that the amendments overcame the objections previously raised.
In reaching its decision, the delegate considered the amendments submitted by Minproc Technology Pty Ltd and determined that they successfully addressed the issues of novelty, inventive step, and compliance with the statutory requirements. The delegate noted that while the appeal by Minproc Technology Pty Ltd was pending, the application was in order to proceed to grant once the appeal was withdrawn. The delegate’s decision thus effectively recognised the validity of the amended patent application, pending the resolution of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.