Royden George Mayfield v COLIN Radcliffe Summary

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The decision in question involved a dispute between Royden George Mayfield, the applicant, and Colin Radcliffe, the opponent, regarding a patent application for a ground levelling machine. The opposition was heard in Canberra on August 4, 1992, and the decision was issued on January 22, 1993, by a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents. Mayfield had filed a patent application for his invention, a ground levelling machine, but Radcliffe opposed the application under Section 59 of the Patents Act 1952. The main legal issue for the court to decide was whether Mayfield's patent application was valid or if it should be refused due to prior publication and use of the invention.

The court found that claims 1 to 15 of the patent application, both as initially accepted and subsequently amended, were prior published by public use before their respective priority dates. As a result, the opposition succeeded under ground (e) of paragraph 1 of Section 59 of the Patents Act 1952. The court noted that the evidence on file only addressed prior use of the machines illustrated in the drawings of the specifications of the applications PH1957 and PH3657. However, the court allowed Mayfield 60 days to propose amendments to overcome the prior publication deficiencies. Since Mayfield did not propose any amendments, the Commissioner proposed to proceed to refuse the application. Neither party provided comments or advice within the time specified in the letters.

Following the lack of comments or advice from both parties, the delegate of the Commissioner of Patents proceeded to refuse the application. In the absence of any reasons to delay the decision, the application was refused. The patent attorneys for the applicant were Carter Smith & Beadle from Five Dock, while the patent attorneys for the opponent were R K Maddern & Associates from Adelaide. This decision effectively meant that Mayfield's patent application for the ground levelling machine was refused and that Radcliffe's opposition was successful.

Royden George Mayfield v COLIN Radcliffe

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established