RAINSFORDS METAL PRODUCTS PTY. LTD.
[1983] APO 53
•16 December 1983
In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952
‑ and ‑
In the Matter of Petty Patent No. 525605 in the Name of RAINSFORDS METAL PRODUCTS PTY. LTD.
‑ and ‑
In the Matter of an Application for the Grant of an Extension of Term.
DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:
Petty patent 525605 was sealed on 9 December, 1982 in respect of a petty patent specification entitled "CHILD SEAT STRAP ARRANGEMENT" as a divisional of patent No. 527654. On 20 October, 1983 the patentee made application in accordance with s.s.68B(1) of the Act for the grant of an extension of term of the petty patent.
On 9 November, 1983 a s.s.68B(3) notice was lodged in the name of T.I. Industries Pty. Ltd. informing the Commissioner of certain facts that, it asserts, establishes the grounds set out in paragraphs 100(1)(a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (g) of the Act.
Two statutory declarations, dated 9 November, 1983, by Jeffrey Peter Winch accompanied the notice. These declarations set out the facts upon which the informant relies. Attached to the declarations are the following documents:
.Australian Patent Specifications ‑
No. 525,605 (Exhibit JPW 1;
No. 503,602 (Exhibit JPW 2);
No. 527,654 (Exhibit JPW 3);
No. 240,325 (Exhibit JPW 4);
. US Pa tent Specifications ‑
No. 3,512,830 (Exhibit JPW 5);
No. 3,325,213 (Exhibit JPW 6);
No. 3,709,558 (Exhibit JPW 7);
No. 3,910,634 (Exhibit JPW 8);
No. 3,934,934 (Exhibit JPW 9);
No. 3,791,694 (Exhibit JPW 10);
.Australian Patent specification
No. 449,616 (Exhibit JPW 11);
.a photocopy of page 50 from a publication dated September 1968, that publication being readily available in Australia and illustrating a so‑called "Britax Star Rider" Seat (Exhibit JPW 12); and a photograph of a child seat previously marketed by the Company, known as the C57 type seat (Exhibit JPW 13), together with a copy of a workshop drawing directed to a removable harness buckle (as used in the aforementioned C57 type seat), that drawing clearly being dated 1st May, 1973, and also a copy of a flow chart setting out the various steps involved in the production of the said C57 type seat.
.United Kingdom Patent Specification No. 1,022,445;
.United Kingdom Patent Specification No. 1,184,181;
.German Offenlegungsschrift No. 25 22 285;
.German Offenlegungsschrift No. 27 12 917; and
.United States Patent Specification No. 3,954,280.
Both the patentee and the s.68B informant indicated that they did not wish to be heard on the matter. I therefore proceed on the basis of the statements made in Mr. Winch's declaration and the associated documents.
I find nothing in the declarations of Mr. Winch relating to the grounds set out in paragrphs 100(1)(a) and (b) of the Act. I therefore find that these grounds have not been established.
Mr. Winch, in paragraph 9 of his first declaration, puts forward argument in support of the ground given in paragraph 100(1)(c) of the Act, however I am not satisfied that this ground has been established ‑ it appears to me that the invention claimed is a Manner of Manufacture.
It is convenient at this stage to refer to the claim of the petty patent specification:"A child seat strap arrangement for a child's seat having a seat portion with surfaces defining a pair of crotch strap guide apertures, and a crotch strap having two crotch strap parts extending through those respective said guide apertures, characterised in that each crotch strap part terminates above the seat portion in one part of a three part buckle and has an end beneath the seat portion which comprises a respective loop and plate, said loops being secured to said plates, and said ends being alternatively:
(a)interengageable so as to provide a crotch strap length suitable for use by a small child, or
(b)releasable from one another such that their respective plates are engageable against the under‑
surface of said seat portion to provide a longer crotch strap length suitable for use by a larger child."
Mr. Winch does not appear to make any adverse comments concerning the petty patent specification pertinent to s.40. I am satisfied that the petty patent specification does comply with the requirements of that section of the Act.
Mr. Winch queries the divisional status of the instant petty patent. He asserts that the petty patent is not "in respect of an (alleged) invention disclosed in the complete specification lodged in respect of the parent patent, 527654". Having considered the parent complete specification, I am satisfied that the parent specification disclosed the invention, the subject of the present petty patent claim. I am also satisfied that there is no "Dreyfus situation" occurring between the claims of the parent and the present claim; claim 7 of the parent includes integers not specified in the present claim and is therefore not directed to the same invention.
I now turn to the ground of want of novelty. No publication dates are provided by the informant for the foreign patent documents attached to Mr. Winch's declaration. However, I find that even when I take account of all the informant's documents, the ground of want of novelty has not been made out. None of the documents relied on by the informant disclose a seat strap arrange‑
ment having the particular combination of integers defined in the present claim.
Further, I find that the informant has failed to make out the ground of obviousness. There is no evidence before me establishing that the documents attached to the Winch declaration formed part of the common general knowledge in the art at the priority date. I also do not regard the assertions made by Mr. Winch in his declaration as relevant as I do not believe that he is qualified to comment on what was the common general knowledge in the art at the priority date.
In conclusion I am not satisfied of the existence of any of the grounds mentioned in paragraphs 100(1)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of the Act and I consequently grant an extension of term of petty patent No. 525605.
(P.A. KILBORN)
0
0
0