Trevor McGregor and Shirley Clarke v Anthony Smith & Associates and Tamper Seal (Australia) Pty Ltd

OFFICIAL NOTICE

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Application : No. 674624 in the name of Trevor McGregor & Shirley Clarke

Title: Improved Cap Seal

Action: Final decision on oppositions under s.59 by Anthony Smith & Associates Pty Ltd and Tamper Seal (Australia) Pty Ltd.

Decision: Issued .
Abstract

The applicant did not propose any amendments to overcome the grounds of invalidity identified in the earlier decision on the s.59 oppositions.

Application refused.

PATENTS ACT 1990

DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

Re:Patent Application No. 674624 by Trevor McGregor and Shirley Clarke and oppositions under s.59 by Anthony Smith & Associates Pty Ltd and Tamper Seal (Australia) Pty Ltd

BACKGROUND

In my decision of 5 August 1998, I found that patent application 674624 was invalid because the claims did not comply with s.40 and were lacking in novelty. I allowed the patent applicant a period of 60 days from the date of that decision to propose amendments to remove the grounds of invalidity.

This period has passed and no amendments have been proposed.

Before making any final decision on the matter, I gave all parties an opportunity to be heard. The applicant indicated that it did not wish to be heard.

DECISION

I refuse patent application no. 674624

R Hallett
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

Patent attorneys for the applicant : Carter Smith & Beadle
Patent attorneys for the opponents : Phillips Ormonde & Fitzpatrick

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Trevor McGregor and Shirley Clarke applied for a patent for an improved cap seal, which was opposed by Anthony Smith & Associates and Tamper Seal (Australia) Pty Ltd. The oppositions were based on sections 59 of the Patents Act 1990, which allows for objections on the grounds of invalidity. The primary issues the court had to decide were whether the claims in the patent application complied with section 40 of the Patents Act and whether the invention was novel. The court previously ruled that the patent application was invalid due to non-compliance with section 40 and lack of novelty. The applicant was given 60 days to propose amendments to address these issues, but no amendments were proposed within the given time frame.

The court, in its decision, noted that the applicant did not propose any amendments to overcome the grounds of invalidity identified in the earlier decision. The applicant also did not wish to be heard on the matter. The court gave all parties an opportunity to be heard before making its final decision. The court found that since the applicant did not propose any amendments to address the issues of invalidity and lack of novelty, the patent application could not be granted.

The court refused the patent application on the basis that the applicant had not proposed any amendments to address the identified grounds of invalidity and lack of novelty. The applicant was given a period of 60 days to propose amendments, which they failed to do. The court found that the applicant did not wish to be heard on the matter and therefore refused the patent application. The final orders of the court were that the patent application no. 674624 was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established