The Leisure Collective International Pty Ltd v Fin Control Systems Pty. Limited - [2018] APO 50

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
The Leisure Collective International Pty Ltd v Fin Control Systems Pty. Limited [2018] APO 50

Patent Application: 2013204785

Title:Fin Plug for Water Craft

Patent Applicant:                   Fin Control Systems Pty. Limited
Opponent:  The Leisure Collective International Pty Ltd
Delegate:  Greg Powell
Decision Date:  6 August 2018
Hearing Date:  7 June 2018, in Canberra

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 104 opposition – claims are fairly based – s102 satisfied – opposition unsuccessful – cost award varied

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Geoff Davidson, Halfords IP
Patent attorney for the opponent: Watermark Intellectual Property Pty Ltd

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2013204785

Title:Fin Plug for Water Craft

Patent Applicant: Fin Control Systems Pty. Limited
Date of Decision: 6 August 2018
DECISION
The opposition is unsuccessful. I allow the amendment.
Costs are awarded according to Schedule 8 against The Leisure Collective International Pty Ltd excluding item 12.
REASONS FOR DECISION

Patent application 2013204785 was filed by Fin Control Systems Pty. Limited (“the applicant”) on 12 April 2013. Following acceptance, an opposition to grant of a patent by The Leisure Collective International Pty Ltd (“the opponent”) was filed on 17 June 2016. Following completion of all evidentiary stages, the applicant proposed amendments on 21 June 2017. The amendment was advertised on 10 August 2017 and the opponent opposed allowance of the amendments on 10 October 2017.
The opponent filed evidence in support consisting of a single declaration by Mark Anthony Pullen, a principal of the opponent’s patent attorney firm, accompanied by exhibits MAP-01 to MAP-04. The applicant filed no evidence in answer.
The Commissioner originally indicated that the opposition to the amendments could be adequately dealt with on the basis of written submissions rather than an oral hearing. While the opponent was content to proceed in this manner, the applicant insisted that only an oral hearing would be satisfactory. On this basis, the matter was set to be heard orally. The applicant appeared by telephone, the opponent was content with filing written submissions.
Evidence in Support
I must admit to being at somewhat of a loss as to how to characterise the evidence of the opponent. While it is often the case that evidence is received from persons with expertise in the technical area of the invention, the evidence in support filed by the opponent is from a patent attorney. Moreover, it is in the form of submissions.
I will proceed and answer the questions I am meant to decide in relation to allowability of amendments with a view to the evidence in support. However, I believe that it is of little assistance to me.
The specification
The specification relates to what are called fin plugs which are components that are embedded in the underside of water craft, such as surfboards, and which are adapted to receive at least one fin. In operation, the fin is removably attached to the water craft by inserting the relevant base portion (or base element) of the fin into the cavity (or cavities) of the fin plug (or fin plugs).
The specification states that, while there are known fin systems in existence, there is a need for a fin plug adapted to enable fins to be removably secured to the underside of a water craft in a quick, easy and secure manner, preferably without the need for using a tool (which some existing systems require).
The invention of the present application seeks to address this with a fin plug which has a cavity to receive the base portion of a fin and a movable portion mounted on a resilient member which protrudes into the cavity space through an aperture in the cavity side wall. Figure 3C provides a basic understanding of the invention:
When a portion 15 of a fin 50 is inserted into the cavity 20, the movable portion 35 which is mounted on a resilient elongate rod 30 initially deflects outwardly and then returns to nest in a groove 65 in the fin’s side surface. This locks the fin in place.
The opponent noted that description also mentions that, in addition to this locking mechanism, another locking mechanism can be included. Figure 5A provides the basic idea:
The other locking mechanism is formed by a protrusion 80 located in a second cavity 75, which protrusion inserts into, and mates with, a recess 85 in a second portion of the fin 50.
The description states that one, or both, of these locking mechanisms “can snap-lock together” so that the fin is held in place.
The legislation
Examination of the application was requested before 15 April 2013 and therefore substantive amendments to the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) brought about by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 do not apply to the present application.
Subsection 102(1) of the Act as it applies to the present application is as follows:
(1) An amendment of a complete specification is not allowable if, as a result of the amendment, the specification would claim matter not in substance disclosed in the specification as filed.
Subsection 102(2) of the Act as it applies to the present application is as follows:
(2) An amendment of a complete specification is not allowable after the relevant time if, as a result of the amendment:
(a) a claim of the specification would not in substance fall within the scope of the claims of the specification before amendment; or
(b) the specification would not comply with subsection 40(2) or (3).
The “relevant time” for the purpose of s 102(2)(a) is after the specification has been accepted (s 102(2A) of the Act). As the present specification had been accepted when the amendments were requested, the requirements of s 102(2) apply.
The applicable parts of s 40 of the Act as they apply to the present case are set out below:
(2) A complete specification must:
(a) describe the invention fully, including the best method known to the applicant of performing the invention; and
(b) where it relates to an application for a standard patent – end with a claim or claims defining the invention.
(3)The claim or claims must be clear and succinct and fairly based on the matter described in the specification.
The nature of the amendments
The specification at acceptance included 72 claims. The proposed amendments maintain that number and make changes to only claims 1, 25 and 30. While the complete set of claims as proposed to be amended, with appropriate mark-up, is given in Annex A, the marked up version of claims 1, 25 and 30 is reproduced below:
1.A fin plug for installation in a water craft, said fin plug including:
·a first open cavity adapted to receive a base portion of a water craft fin; and,
·a resilient biasing rod and a protruding member cooperating with the biasing rod, said protruding member being adapted to abut the base portion of said fin when received in said first open cavity;
wherein said biasing rod is adapted to resiliently bend with insertion of the fin base portion into the first open cavity such that the biasing rod and protruding member are adapted to apply a force to the base portion of said fin to inhibit removal of said fin from said first open cavity
25.A water craft fin having a base portion adapted to be received within an open cavity of a fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 24, so as to snap-lock into engagement with the fin plug and be retained by the resilient biasing rod and protruding member.
30.A water craft fin according to any one of claims 25 to 29, further including a fin section adapted to underlie ~~the~~ a ledge portion in a second open cavity of said fin plug and to retain a forward tab ~~inhibit movement~~ of said fin in the second open cavity when ~~the base portion~~ a rear tab of said fin is received within the first open cavity.
I also note some changes were made to the description that mirror the changes to the claims. They do not need to be considered any further to decide this opposition.
Grounds of opposition
The basis of the opposition is usually set out in a statement of grounds and particulars (“SGP”) which specifies the ground that the amendment is being opposed under, and the particulars that establish the opposition under that ground. In the present opposition, the SGP does not follow the traditional form. For the present opposition, the SGP states (italics in original):
“The grounds and particulars of our opposition are as follows:
1.On 21 June 2017 the Applicant filed a request under s104 to amend the description and claims presently under opposition.
2.In particular, the Applicant’s request included amending claim 25 and corresponding paragraph [0036] by inclusion of the wording “…so as to snap-lock into engagement with the fin plug and be retained by the resilient biasing rod and protruding member.”
3.Claim 25 as proposed to be amended consequently reads “A water craft fin having a base portion adapted to be received within an open cavity of a fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 24, so as to snap-lock into engagement with the fin plug and be retained by the resilient biasing rod and protruding member.”
4.The requested amendments must comply with subsection 102(1) and paragraphs 102(2)(a) and 102(2)(b) of the Patents Act 1990.
5.That is to say, the amendments requested after acceptance must:

1.fall within the scope of the claims as accepted (s102(2)(a));
2.fall within the scope of the specification as filed (s102(1)), i.e. no new matter can be added; and
3.comply with s40(3) (s102(2)(b)) - The claim or claims must be clear and succinct and supported by matter disclosed in the specification.

6.The amended claim must be fairly based on the specification as filed. That is, there must be a real and reasonably clear disclosure in the body of the specification for what is claimed as a result of the amendment.

7.The only support for “snap-lock” within the specification is found at paragraphs [0069] and [0172] of the present version of the specification. That “snap-lock” requires one or both of the protrusion (80) and the recess (85) and the extending portion (35) and the first fin portion (15). There is no support for alternative or broader arrangements.

8.However, the proposed amendment to claim 25 seeks to encompass ‘snap-lock’ arrangements in a general sense that are not supported by the specification as filed. The water craft fin defined in proposed amended claim 25 is merely ‘adapted’ “so as to snap-lock into engagement with the fin plug and be retained by the resilient biasing rod and protruding member.”

9.Without the limitation of the specific interaction between either or both the protrusion (80) and the recess (85) and the extending portion (35) and the first fin portion (15), claim 25 lacks clarity, succinctness and lacks support from matter disclosed in the specification.

10.However, it is unclear how the protrusion (80) and the recess (85) can provide such a ‘snap-lock’ feature. As shown in the Figures, such as Figure 5F copied below, the protrusion 80 fits into the recess 85, and must do so before the first fin portion 15 is received into the rear slot. Consequently, the purpose and meaning of ‘snap-lock’ is rendered unclear.

11.The entire wording of claim 25 as proposed to be amended: “A water craft fin having a base portion adapted to be received within an open cavity of a fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 24, so as to snap-lock into engagement with the fin plug and be retained by the resilient biasing rod and protruding member.”, is indefinite in scope (i.e. lacks clarity and succinctness) that cannot be remedied by inclusion of features from paragraphs [0069] or [0172] and it is not in the public interest for claims to be granted that have an indefinite scope.

12.A ‘snap-lock’ is an outcome of physical features and function of components, and claim 25 as proposed to be amended leaves third parties guessing as to what constitutes a ‘snap-lock’. For example, if the fin is slowly introduced into the fin plug such that there is no sudden ‘snapping action’ is there a ‘snap-lock’?

13.The specification as filed does not define or describe what constitutes a ‘snap-lock’. There are no metes and bounds for the reader to understand, rendering proposed amended claim 25 vague, indefinite and unclear in scope and meaning and failing to comply with section 40.

14.Claim 25 further lacks clarity in that it is unclear whether “protruding member” in proposed amended claim 25 is the same “protruding member” of claim 1 or is a different “protruding member”.

15.We submit that for at least the above reasons, proposed amended claim 25 falls within the requirements of s102 and should be rejected.”

It would appear that the opposition is based upon the amendment’s lack of compliance with the requirements of subsection 102(1), and paragraphs 102(2)(a) and 102(2)(b) of the Act. Specifically, it is the amendment to a single claim, being claim 25, which is said to give rise to this lack of compliance. Moreover, with the exception of paragraph 14 of the SGP, it would appear that it is the additional of a single feature, which is “snap-lock” to this single claim which gives rise to all problems.
As I understand the case put by the opponent, claim 25 seeks to include all versions of snap-lock mechanisms within the scope of the claims, the description only exemplifies one. The opponent contended that, therefore, claim 25 is indefinite in scope which, as far as I follow the argument, is the same thing as saying that the claim lacks clarity and succinctness; i.e. the claim did not meet the requirements of s102(2)(b). Furthermore, the opponent’s position is that, as there is no support for alternative or broader arrangements, claim 25 is not fairly based and cannot fall within the scope of the claims before amendment; i.e. the claim does not meet the requirements of s 102(2)(a) and s102(1).
Scope of decision
As an initial position, the applicant noted that the claims before amendment contained mention of a “snap lock” (see, for example, claims 28 and 62 in Annex A). Given the presence of “snap lock” in these claims, the applicant submitted that, if the specification was non-compliant as a result of the amendment, it must have been non-compliant before the amendment. In other words, the insertion of a mention of “snap lock” into claim 25 could not have caused the specification to become non-compliant with s40(2) or (3). That is, the non-compliance with s40(2) and (3) did not arise “as a result of the amendment” and, therefore, the amendment was allowable. Furthermore, they submitted that, to the extent that claim 25 as amended was asserted by the opponent to claim matter not in substance disclosed, given the way the opponent linked a lack of fair basis to a conclusion that claim 25 was not “in substance disclosed”, the presence of a broad mention of “snap lock” in the claim set prior to amendment meant that any lack of fair basis must have already pre-existed. The applicant submitted that, therefore, the conclusion that must follow is that any lack of in substance disclosure did not arise as a result of the amendment and the claim did not claim new matter as a result of the amendment.
As it turns out, I do not have to consider the question of whether the problems noted by the opponent arise “as a result of” the amendment. The opponent’s contentions can be disposed of very easily by a consideration of the law of fair basis, given that it is accepted that, in determining allowability of amendments, the courts have basically applied the test for fair basis (see United-Carr Incorporated's Application [1971] RPC 23, RGC Mineral Sands Pty Ltd v Wimmera Industrial Minerals Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1358; (1998) 42 IPR 353), and clarity. If the claims as amended are clear and fairly based, then it is clear that no deficiency could have arisen “as a result of the amendment”.
Fair basis
The Law
Under Section 40(3), fair basis is “concerned purely with the relationship between the body and claims of the one specification.” (Lockwood Security v Doric Products [2004] HCA 58; 217 CLR 274; 212 ALR 1; 79 ALJR 260 – “Lockwood”). As was noted in Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1; 177 ALR 460; 75 ALJR 518 the test requires “a comparison between the matter described in the specification and the claim which defines the scope of the monopoly”, following the reasoning of Barwick CJ in Olin Corporation v Super Cartridge Co Pty Ltd [1977] HCA 23; (1994) 180 CLR 236 when he said:
“The question whether the claim is fairly based is not to be resolved ... by considering whether a monopoly in the product would be an undue reward for the disclosure. Rather, the question is a narrow one, namely whether the claim to the product being new, useful, and inventive, that is to say, the claim as expressed, travels beyond the matter disclosed in the specification.”
As was noted in Lockwood:
“… the statutory test as expounded by Barwick CJ does not call for any evaluation of whether the breadth of the claims exceeds ‘the technical contribution to the art embodied in the invention’, merely for an evaluation of whether the claims travel beyond the matter described in the specification”
Lockwood also cited with approval what was said in Rehm Pty Ltd v Websters Security Systems (International) Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 162 at [54]:
“The circumstance that something is a requirement for the best method of performing an invention does not make it necessarily a requirement for all claims; likewise, the circumstance that material is part of the description of the invention does not mean that it must be included as an integer of each claim. Rather, the question is whether there is a real and reasonably clear disclosure in the body of the specification of what is then claimed, so that the alleged invention as claimed is broadly, that is to say in a general sense, described in the body of the specification”
Consideration
It is true that, in line with the opponent’s position, the word “snap-lock” appears only twice in the originally filed specification in paragraphs [065] and [0166] (now paragraphs [069] and [0172]). I note that an additional mention of “snap-lock” was added during examination to paragraph [038], but nothing turns on this. However, it is not correct to say, as the opponent has said (at [21] of their submissions), that the amendment to claim 25 introduces an unconditional feature of “snap-lock” without the “conditional requirements of the description, namely, the requirement in the sole disclosure in the specification that snap-lock only occurs with the specific interaction between either or both the protrusion (80) and the recess (85) and the extending portion (35) and the first fin portion (15)”.
The amendment to claim 25 is not “unconditional”. Firstly, claim 25 is appended to claim 1 (either directly or indirectly) and claim 1, which the opponent apparently had no problems with, provides the features of a biasing rod and a protruding member which together apply a force to the base portion of the fin to inhibit removal. The amendments also added to claim 1 the fact that the biasing rod resiliently bends with insertion of the fin base portion. This very fact means that claim 25 is limited to arrangements that use a biasing rod and protruding member. As such, it does not include alternative arrangements that do not have these features. That is, contrary to the opponent’s contention, the presence of an additional locking mechanism in a second cavity of the fin plug (see my discussion above with respect to figure 5A, for example) does not impact on the assessment of claim 25 with respect to fair basis.

While it is true that claim 25, and claim 1 for that matter, do not limit the claimed arrangement to the particular embodiment disclosed, that is not the consideration for fair basis. As noted above, the question comes down to one of consistency between claims and description.
While I also note that Lockwood said at [87]:
“A ‘coincidence of language’ between a claim and part of the body of a specification does not establish fair basing if that part of the language of the specification does not reflect the description of the invention in the light of the specification as a whole”,
it must also follow that, if there is nothing in the whole of the specification that indicates that the claims are to be limited to the specific features of a specific embodiment, then broadly drawn claims can be considered to be fairly based.
The opponent does not appear to be seriously contending, and I would be amazed if they were, that “snap lock” is unclear. As noted by the applicant, “snap lock” is a term of art with a very clear meaning. It refers to a means of fastening whereby an element of the fastener is deflected from an original position upon insertion/withdrawal of the part to be fastened, and then moves (often quite quickly; i.e. it “snaps”) back to, or close to, it original position to hold the part in place. This is what is (broadly) in claim 25 as proposed to be amended. The opponent has also not pointed to any language which clearly establishes that claim 25 must be limited to the specific embodiment disclosed. Pointing to language which describes a specific embodiment, which is what the opponent has done, is not the same thing.
To my mind it is abundantly clear that claim 25 is fairly based. As is clear from my discussion above in regards to figure 3C, there is a clear disclosure of a water craft fin having a base portion received within a cavity of a fin plug as defined in claim 1 at least which snap-locks into engagement by the action of the resilient biasing rod and protruding member.
It follows that, as there is a real and reasonably clear disclosure of the features of claim 25 in the specification as originally filed, the amendments meet the requirements of s102(1) and s102(2)(b).
It is also clearly the case that the amendments do not expand the scope of claim 25 and, as such, the requirements of s102(2)(a) are met.
Clarity
As a final matter, it also follows that the opponent’s contention in their SGP that claim 25 lacks clarity because it is unclear whether the “protruding member” in claim 25 as proposed to be amended is the same “protruding member” of claim 1, or is a different “protruding member” cannot be sustained. As a matter of simple comprehension, it is clear that the phrase “the resilient biasing rod and protruding member” is obviously meant to be read as “the resilient biasing rod and the protruding member”. To suggest otherwise is to place a very strained interpretation on the words which they simply cannot bear.
It follows that the amendments satisfy the requirements of section 102(2)(b).
Conclusion
The opposition is unsuccessful on all grounds. I will allow the amendments.
Costs
It is usual for costs to follow the event and I can see no reason to vary this approach here. However, I believe that the cost award in this matter should be adjusted slightly.
As noted at the start of this decision, an oral hearing was held purely on the insistence of the applicant’s representative. However, it was noted by the Commissioner when suggesting that the hearing could proceed by written submissions, and by myself during the hearing, that this opposition was confined to a single claim and, more particularly, to a single feature in a single claim. I asked the applicant’s representative why an oral hearing was necessary given this very narrow scope of the hearing. They indicated that, where the opposition relied upon a claim interpretation, as they believed was the case here, then it was important to have the feedback mechanism that was inherent at an oral hearing to keep the matter on track. They noted that 3.8.2.1 of the Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure stated:
“During the hearing, the hearing officer should make known to the parties their views on the issues, problems and technical difficulties with the case (see Vakauta v Kelly (1989) 87 ALR 633 at 635). This will ensure that the parties are fully aware of the case that they have to answer, and that the hearing officer fully understands the case being put by the parties. It is not necessary to obtain agreement with the hearing officer’s point of view”.
The representative indicated that their experience was that a lot of times the hearing officer had come in with an idea of what a term meant, notwithstanding all the written submissions, and the ability to have a feedback mechanism allowed proceedings to stay focussed.
They noted that, from a practitioner’s point of view, the preparation of the written submissions became twice as long when no oral hearing was held because additional information was added “just in case” given the lack of opportunity for feedback. They stated that it would be cheaper for their client to put in a written summary of submissions and to elaborate on any points that became contentious at an oral hearing.
I am not convinced that an oral hearing was necessary. The applicant’s representative stated that they accepted that, if a hearing was in relation to an extension of time, then a hearing by written submissions would be acceptable. To my mind the present opposition is analogous to such a proceeding in the sense that, like an extension of time hearing, the matter is very confined in the present case. I accept that, in complex matters, such as substantive oppositions, an oral hearing is necessary. However, that is clearly not the case here and the submissions made by the applicant’s representative at the oral hearing did not travel very far from the written summary provided.
However, I also accept that this opposition was, fairly clearly, unnecessary. While I cannot speak to the motivations of the opponent, to raise the objections that they did raise, and to file the sort of evidence that they did file suggests a lack of seriousness in this opposition and it being something of a time-wasting exercise.
In the circumstances, I believe that an award of costs according to Schedule 8 against the opponent (The Leisure Collective International Pty Ltd) should be made, but excluding the costs arising from item 12 of the Schedule; that is the hourly rate associated with attendance of a patent attorney at a hearing in person (noting that hearing was only 40 minutes in length anyway).
Greg Powell
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
Annex A
1.A fin plug for installation in a water craft, said fin plug including:
·a first open cavity adapted to receive a base portion of a water craft fin; and,
·a resilient biasing rod and a protruding member cooperating with the biasing rod, said protruding member being adapted to abut the base portion of said fin when received in said first open cavity;
wherein said biasing rod is adapted to resiliently bend with insertion of the fin base portion into the first open cavity such that the biasing rod and protruding member are adapted to apply a force to the base portion of said fin to inhibit removal of said fin from said first open cavity
2.A fin plug according to claim 1, wherein said biasing rod is located adjacent the first open cavity.
3.A fin plug according to claim 1 or claim 2, wherein said biasing rod extends substantially parallel to a side surface of the base portion of said fin.
4.A fin plug according to claim 3, wherein the protruding member is adapted to abut the side surface of the base portion of said fin.
5.A fin plug according to claim 4, wherein the fin plug further includes a lateral cavity and said biasing rod is located within said lateral cavity.
6.A fin plug according to claim 5, wherein the lateral cavity and the first open cavity are separated by an apertured wall and a portion of said protruding member protrudes through an aperture in said wall into said first open cavity.
7.A fin plug according to any one of claims 3 to 6, wherein the side surface of the base portion of said fin includes an inclined surface section, said inclined surface section being adapted to cooperate with the protruding member so as to cause a force, that is at least one of inwardly and laterally into said first open cavity, to be applied to said base portion under the influence of said biasing rod.
8.A fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 7, having a forward region and a rearward region, further including additional fin removal inhibiting means located in said forward region.
9.A fin plug according to claim 8, wherein the protruding member is located in said rearward region.
10.A fin plug according to claim 8, wherein said additional fin removal inhibiting means includes fin engagement means.
11.A fin plug according to claim 10, wherein the fin engagement means includes a ledge portion adapted to overlie a fin section of said fin and to inhibit movement of said fin when the base portion of said fin is received within the first open cavity.
12.A fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 11, including a second open cavity, wherein the first open cavity is adapted to receive a first tab of the base portion of said fin and the second open cavity is adapted to receive a second tab of the base portion of said fin.
13.A fin plug according to claim 12, wherein the first open cavity is located in the rearward region and the second open cavity is located in the forward region.
14.A fin plug according to any one of claims 8 to 13, wherein the inclined surface section of the base portion of said fin is located on the first tab.
15.A fin plug according to any one of claims 11 to 14, wherein said ledge portion is located within said second open cavity.
16.A fin plug according to claim 15, wherein said ledge portion includes a ledge extending from one end of said second open cavity and defining a recess between said ledge and a base surface of said second open cavity, said recess being adapted to receive the fin section.
17.A fin plug according to any one of claims 11 to 16, wherein the fin section is located on the second tab of the base portion of said fin.
18.A fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 17, wherein the protruding member is a ring-shaped member located about said biasing rod.
19.A fin plug according to claim 18, wherein the ring-shaped member is adapted to rotate about said biasing rod.
20.A fin plug according to claim 18 or claim 19, wherein the ring-shaped member has a circumferential outer surface extending between two side surfaces, said circumferential outer surface having a convex profile between said side surfaces.
21.A fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 20, further including a grub screw adapted to extend into said first open cavity and to further secure the base portion of said fin within said first open cavity.
22.A fin plug according to claim 21, further including a further grub screw adapted to extend into said second open cavity and to further secure the second tab of the base portion of said fin within said second open cavity.
23.A fin plug according to any one of claims 12 to 22, wherein the first open cavity and the second open cavity are separated by a bridge section having an upper surface which is adapted to abut a lower surface of the water craft fin.
24.A fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 23, wherein said water craft is a surfboard.
25.A water craft fin having a base portion adapted to be received within an open cavity of a fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 24, so as to snap-lock into engagement with the fin plug and be retained by the resilient biasing rod and protruding member.
26.A water craft fin according to claim 25, wherein said base portion includes a side surface adapted to abut the protruding member of said fin plug.
27.A water craft fin according to claim 26, wherein said side surface includes an inclined surface section adapted to cooperate with the protruding member so as to cause a force, that is at least one of inwardly and laterally into said open cavity, to be applied to said base portion under the influence of the biasing rod of said fin plug.
28.A water craft fin according to claim 26 or 27, wherein the co-operation of the inclined surface section and the protruding member cause the fin and the fin plug to snap-lock together.
29.A water craft fin according to any one of claims 26 to 28, wherein the inclined surface section is located on the side surface of the fin such that the biasing rod is caused to bend to apply at least one of an inward force and a lateral force to the side surface of the fin.
30.A water craft fin according to any one of claims 25 to 29, further including a fin section adapted to underlie ~~the~~ a ledge portion in a second open cavity of said fin plug and to retain a forward tab ~~inhibit movement~~ of said fin in the second open cavity when ~~the base portion~~ a rear tab of said fin is received within the first open cavity.
31.A water craft fin according to any one of claims 25 to 30, wherein said base portion includes a first tab and a second tab and said fin plug includes a first open cavity and a second open cavity, wherein the first tab is adapted to be received within said first open cavity and the second tab is adapted to be received within said second open cavity.
32.A water craft fin according to claim 31, wherein the inclined surface section of the base portion is located on the first tab.
33.A water craft fin according to any one of claims 26 to 32, wherein the side surface further includes a grooved portion whereby a portion at least of the grooved portion is the inclined surface section.
34.A water craft fin according to any one of claims 30 to 33, wherein the fin section is located on the second tab.
35.A water craft fin according to any one of claims 25 to 34, including a lower surface adapted to abut an upper surface of the bridge section of the fin plug.
36.A water craft fin according to claim 25, wherein the base portion has two tabs being a forward tab and a rear tab;
the forward tab includes a section at a front portion of the tab which is adapted to be retained by a ledge portion of a fin plug; and
the rear tab includes a side surface which includes a formation shaped to co-operate with and be removably retained by the protruding member in a side of a fin plug cavity;
wherein the formation is located at a leading portion of the side surface of the rear tab.
37.A water craft fin according to any one of claims 25 to 36, wherein said water craft is a surfboard.
38.A fin plug and a water craft fin kit, for use in a surfboard, including a fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 24 and a water craft fin according to any one of claims 25 to 37.
39.A water craft attachment device having a base portion adapted to be received within an open cavity of a fin plug according to any one of claims 1 to 24.
40.A water craft attachment device according to claim 39, wherein said base portion includes a side surface adapted to abut the protruding member of said fin plug
41.A water craft attachment device according to claim 40, wherein the side surface includes an inclined surface section adapted to cooperate with said protruding member so as to cause a force, that is at least one of inwardly and laterally into said open cavity, to be applied to said base portion under the influence of the biasing rod of said fin plug.
42.A water craft attachment device according to any one of claims 39 to 41, further including a nose section adapted to underlie the ledge portion of said fin plug and to inhibit movement of the water craft attachment device when the base portion of said attachment device is received within the first open cavity.
43.A water craft attachment device according to any one of claims 39 to 42, wherein said base portion includes a first tab and a second tab and said fin plug includes a first open cavity and a second open cavity, wherein the first tab is adapted to be received within said first open cavity and the second tab is adapted to be received within said second open cavity.
44.A water craft attachment device according to claim 43, wherein the inclined surface section of the base portion is located on the first tab.
45.A water craft attachment device according to claim 43 or claim 44, wherein the nose section of the base portion is located on the second tab.
46.A water craft attachment device according to any one of claims 39 to 45 further including a support connecting element for connecting the attachment device to a support structure.
47.A water craft attachment device according to claim 46, wherein the support connecting element includes a hook element.
48.A water craft attachment device according to claim 47, wherein the hook element is adapted to connect the water craft attachment device to a support rod.
49.A water craft attachment device according to any one of claims 46 to 48, wherein the support connecting element is separated from the base portion by an intermediate section.
50.A water craft attachment device according to any one of claims 46 to 49, wherein the hook element lies in a plane which is at right angles to the plane of the first and second tabs.
51.A water craft attachment device according to any one of claims 39 to 50, further including a lower surface adapted to abut an upper surface of the bridge section of the fin plug.
52.A water craft attachment device according to any one of claims 39 to 51, wherein the water craft attachment device is adapted for connection to said fin plug within a surfboard.
53.A fin plug for installation in a water craft, said fin plug being substantially as hereinbefore described with reference to any one or more of the accompanying figures.
54.A water craft fin substantially as hereinbefore described with reference to any one or more of the accompanying figures.
55.A water craft attachment device substantially as hereinbefore described with reference to any one of Figures 29A to 29H.
56.A device for holding a first fin portion in a water craft, the device including:
a)a first cavity having a cavity wall; and,
b)a resilient elongate member located at least partially along an elongate side of the cavity wall, the resilient elongate member having an extending portion, the extending portion extending from the resilient member through a recess in the elongate side of the cavity wall,
wherein the first fin portion is configured to be inserted into the first cavity such that any one or a combination of the resilient elongate member and the extending portion apply a force to the first fin portion to hold the first fin portion within the first cavity.
57.The device of claim 56, wherein the resilient elongate member is a resilient rod and the extending portion includes a bulbous portion, the bulbous portion being configured to engage with the first fin portion.
58.The device of claim 57, wherein the bulbous portion is part of a wheel-like member formed around the elongate rod, the wheel-like member being configured to rotate about the rod when engaging with the first fin portion, during installation and/or removal of the first fin portion, and to hold the first fin portion in the first cavity when thefirst fin portion is installed into the device.
59.The device of any one of claims 56 to 58, wherein the first fin portion includes a grooved portion on a side fin surface, the grooved portion being configured to engage with the extending portion.
60.The device of claim 59, when dependent on claim 58, wherein a surface of the wheel-like member is configured to sit within the grooved portion.
61.The device of any one of claims 56 to 60, wherein the device includes a second cavity, the second cavity including a protrusion, the protrusion being configured to be received by a corresponding recess of a second fin portion, to thereby hold the second fin portion within the second cavity.
62.The device of claim 61, wherein any one or a combination of the protrusion and the recess and, the extending portion and the first fin portion, snap-lock together.
63.The device of claim 61, wherein the first cavity and the second cavity are part of one elongate cavity.
64.The device of claim 61, wherein the first cavity and the second cavity are two distinct cavities formed within the device.
65.The device of any one of claims 61 to 64, wherein the first fin portion and the second fin portion are first and second tabs, respectively, the first and second tabs protruding from a base portion of the fin.
66.The device of any one of claims 56 to 65, wherein the device is shaped such that the device has a figure-eight profile.
67.The device of claim 66, when dependent on claim 61, wherein the first cavity is formed within a first end of the figure-eight and the second cavity is formed within a second end of the figure-eight.
68.The device of any one of claims 56 to 67, wherein the device is integral to the water craft.
69.The device of any one of claims 56 to 6468 [sic], wherein the device is insertable into the water craft.
70.A device and fin plug assembly, the assembly including a device of any one of claims 56 to 69, wherein the device is configured to hold a fin.
71.A securing arrangement for securing a water craft fin to a water craft having a fin plug, the fin plug having a first open cavity configured to receive a base portion of the water craft fin; the securing arrangement including a resilient biasing rod and a protruding member cooperating with the biasing rod, said protruding member being adapted to actuate when the base portion of said fin when received in said first open cavity so that the biasing rod and protruding member inhibit removal of said fin from said first open cavity.
72.A securing arrangement according to claim 71, wherein said biasing rod extends substantially parallel to a side surface of the base portion of said fin.