W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v David Goldfarb Summary

In the Matter of the Patents Act 1952
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Application No. 493280 for a Patent by W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
‑ and ‑

In the Matter of Opposition thereto under Section 59 by DAVID GOLDFARB.

DECISION OF A SUPERVISING EXAMINER OF PATENTS:

In my decision in this matter dated 4 March 1986 I found that claims 1 and 2 of the complete specification did not comply with section 40, and I allowed the applicant sixty days in which to propose amendments to remove this ground of opposition.
On 5 May 1986 the applicant lodged a section 77 request to amend the complete specification. Subsequent to proceedings under section 79, the request was advertised on 4 June 1987 and allowed on 22 September 1987, the amendments being incorporated into the complete specification at that time. The opponents were given twenty one days from 24 September 1987 to request a hearing on the specification as amended, and on 13 October declined to be heard.

I am satisfied that the amendments remove the grounds for the earlier findings and thus 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, subject to any appeal.

(J.L. ROVETA)
Supervising Examiner of Patents

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Patents Act case of W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v David Goldfarb, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. sought a patent for an invention, which was opposed by David Goldfarb. The dispute involved the compliance of certain claims with the requirements of the Patents Act 1952. The matter was before a Supervising Examiner of Patents, J.L. Roveta, who had to determine whether the claims in the complete specification complied with the statutory requirements and whether the applicant's amendments, if any, sufficiently addressed the opposition's objections.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the initial claims in the complete specification complied with section 40 of the Patents Act 1952, and if the proposed amendments effectively remedied any deficiencies identified. The opposition argued that the initial claims did not meet the statutory requirements, while the applicant contended that the amendments appropriately addressed these issues.

In the decision, the Supervising Examiner of Patents found that the initial claims 1 and 2 of the complete specification did not comply with section 40. However, after the applicant lodged a request to amend the claims and subsequent proceedings, the Examiner concluded that the proposed amendments removed the grounds for the earlier findings of non-compliance. The amendments were deemed to be sufficient to meet the statutory requirements, and no further objections were raised by the opponents.

Consequently, the Supervising Examiner directed that the application and the amended complete specification proceed to sealing, subject to any appeal. This outcome allowed W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. to move forward with the patent process, provided that no appeal was lodged against the decision.

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v David Goldfarb

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established