Philip 0 Littleford v Cook Inc

[1988] APO 37

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952 - and - In the Matter of Application No. 519365 for a Patent by PHILIP O. LITTLEFORD - and - In the Matter of Section 59 Opposition thereto by COOK INC.

 

FINAL DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:

In my decision in this matter dated 18 December, 1986 I found that the opposition succeeded on the ground of claim 3 not being novel and the ground of non-compliance with section 40. I afforded the applicant an opportunity to propose amendments to overcome these defects. A request to amend was filed by the applicant within the time allowed and following examination action was advertised in the Official Journal on 9 April, 1987. On 7 July, 1987 the opponent gave notice under section 82 of opposition to the granting of the request. ?he opponent was granted extensions of time to serve evidence in respect of this opposition until 7 January, 1988. On 30 December, 1987 the applicant lodged a second request to amend the specification under section 77 and on 7 January, 1988 the opponent withdrew its section 82 opposition. The first request to amend was allowed and the specification duly amended, as notified in the official Journal on 3 March, 1988. The 'second request to amend, which was not opposed, was allowed and the specification duly amended, as will be notified in the official Journal on 27 October, 1988.

The opponent advised via its patent attorney that it did not wish to be further heard in respect of the section 59 opposition.

I am satisfied that the amendments remove the grounds for the earlier findings and I am of the opinion that there is no lawful ground of objection to the application and complete specification. I direct, therefore, that the application and complete specification as amended proceed to sealing. However I note that the attorney representing the applicant advised the Patent Office of the death of Dr. Philip O. Littleford in August 1984 but did not lodge any documents in respect of the applicant's legal representative. Consequently I consider that the patent should be sealed in the name of the present applicant. The person to whom the patent ought to have been granted may then amend the patent under sub-section 65(2) by substituting his/her/its name for Philip O. Littleford.

(M. KENDALL)

Supervising Examiner of Patents

18 0CT 1988

Patent Attorney for the Applicant: Griffith Hack & Co. Patent Attorney for the Opponent : Spruson & Ferguson