Royden George Mayfield v COLIN Radcliffe

[1994] APO 13

official notice

decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents

Application        :    No. 582459 in the name of
  ROYDEN GEORGE MAYFIELD

Title:    Ground Levelling Machine

Action: Opposition under s. 59 by

COLIN RADCLIFFE

Decision           :    Issued            .  Application
  refused  

patents act 1990

decision of a delegate of the commissioner of patents

Re:Patent Application No. 582459 by ROYDEN GEORGE MAYFIELD

and opposition thereto under Section 59 of the Patents Act

1952 by COLIN RADCLIFFE.

background

The opposition in this matter was heard in Canberra on 4 August 1992 and I issued my decision on 22 January 1993.  In that decision I said:

"I find that claims 1 to 15 as accepted and claims 1 to 15 as
    subsequently amended, the allowance of which was advertised on 26
    September 1991, were prior published by public use prior to their
    respective priority dates and thus the opposition succeeds on
ground (e) of paragraph 1 of section 59 of the Patents Act 1952.

I note that the evidence on file with respect to prior use is
    limited to the prior use of the machines illustrated in the
    drawings of the specifications of the applications PH1957 and
    PH3657.  As there may be patentable subject matter contained within
    the specification, I allow the applicant 60 days from the date of
    this decision to propose amendments to overcome the prior
    publication deficiencies."

The applicant did not propose any amendments.  By letters, both dated
22 November 1993, the applicant and opponent were advised that as no amendments had been filed within the time provided in my decision, the Commissioner proposed to proceed to refuse the application.  The parties
were invited to provide, within fourteen days of the date of the letters, comments and advice as to whether they wished to be heard.  Neither party provided comments or advice within the time specified in the letters.

DECISION

In the absence of any comments and advice from the respective parties I see no reason why I cannot proceed and refuse the application.

CONCLUSION

I refuse the application.

J.M.Sellars
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Patent attorneys for the applicant: Carter Smith & Beadle, Five Dock
Patent Attorneys for the opponent : R K Maddern & Associates, Adelaide