In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952 and In the Matter of Patent Application No. 530072 by THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DETENCE IN HER BRITANNIC MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND and - In the Matter of Opposition thereto under Section 59 by RHEINMETALL GMBH.
FINAL DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:
In my decision in this matter dated 20 October, 1986, I found that the application failed to comply with section 40, that claim 1 (at least) did not define a manner of new manufacture, and that all claims were obvious.
Subsequently, amendments which had been proposed by the applicant under section 77 were allowed and incorporated into the specification on 27 March, 1987.
In a further decision dated 29 March, 1988, I found that the amended specification did not comply with the requirements of my original decision. I directed the applicant to propose further amendments within a period of 30 days.
On 15 April, 1988, the applicant lodged a further section 77 request to amend the complete specification. Subsequent to proceedings under section 79, the request was advertised on 14 July, 1988 and allowed on 14 November, 1988, the amendments being incorporated into the complete specification at that time.
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.
(J L Roveta)Supervising Examiner of Patents
25 NOV 1988
Patent Attorneys for the Applicant: Griffith Hack & Co., Sydney
- AGLC
- The Secretary of State for Detence in Her Britannic Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Rheinmetall Gmbh [1988] APO 43
- Case
- [1988] APO 43
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the patent application complied with the requirements of section 40 of the Patents Act 1952, whether claim 1 defined a manner of new manufacture, and whether the claims were obvious. Additionally, the court had to consider the amendments proposed by the applicant under section 77 and whether they met the requirements of the earlier decision.
In reaching its decision, the court found that the initial application did not comply with the requirements of section 40 and that claim 1 did not define a manner of new manufacture. The court also found that all claims were obvious. However, the court allowed amendments proposed by the applicant under section 77, and found that the amended specification complied with the earlier decision. The court directed that the application and complete specification as amended proceed to sealing.
No final orders were made in this decision. However, the court's direction that the application and complete specification as amended proceed to sealing effectively allows the patent application to proceed to the next stage of the patent application process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.