JUDGMENT. This 4s a petition under section 86 (4)(b) for the revocation of letters patent dated as of 17th February 1925 granted to the Bates Valve Bag Co. in respect of an alleged invention for improvements in paper bags. The purpose of the invention is to provide a container which will resist a considerable amount of rough usage or will hold heavy charges , such as cement. The bag described by the specifica- tion congsiste of several plies of light weight paper fastened together only at the ends so that at the places subjected to bending they are a. relatively moveable. The ends are fastened by sewing or stapling or the like, A valve is or may be provided for the purpose of filling and closing the bag. The valve is made at an end of the bag where the ov nultiply walls are fastened by sewing stapling and it is formed by SR / folding in gf the wall, of the bag at this point. An orifice is thus made into which the material is poured, When the beg is filled ite contents fall or press against the infolded paper and so close the valve or funnel, The petitioner claims that the patent should be revoked on the grounds that in the state of knowledge at the date of the patent the alleged invention poesessed no eubject matter, that it was not novel, that it had been anticipated, that before the application for the Sobers patent it had in Australie been actually communicated to the public and that the specification is insufficient and ambiguous. Before any detailed consideration of the nature of the alleged invention and of the specification ascertaining it, some des- eription is necessary of the state of common knowledge. Many substances are so fine that they tend to escape through containers of jute or other woven material which is aleo not so impervious to mois- ture as paper. For these and other reasons the use of paper bags ies desiratie, if the objections to paper on account of its weaknesses can be'overcome, If strength and durability are sought in the stoutness: and thicknees of the paper other troubles are countered. The paper is less flexible. It cracks where it bends. Effective fastening is _ ; me i 4, less easy, Pasting or gumming is not a satisfactory means of cloging" paper containers and the thicker the paper the less secure it becomes, Stepling or sewing is, of course, an obvious alternative butfunless _— ——— it has the aid of the Fictional contact of the several plies of the ich thinner paper, whet it is claimed is given by the alleged invention, does not appear to be satiefactory.) The use of several plies of paper to give strength was well known, The use of sewing and stapling among other fastenings of paper was well known. The use of & sleeve valve in bags of any material was well known, The device of forming it by infolding the wall of the bag was well known, But it does not appear that a form of construction had been adopted in which Several plies of paper had been left quite iy free in their relative movement except at the two ends of the contaii er. A patent was obtained in 1910 by one Priem for a multiply pape container but in his ihvention this freedom of relative movement was prevented because all the sheets of paper were fastened together down the side of the bag as well as at the ends. It appears from a patent granted in 1922 in reepect of bag making mechanism invented by Bates, one of the inventore of the subject paptent, that the mamfac ture of paper bags by making tubes to be out into suitable lengths was known, But several such tubes, one within another, 80 far as appears,had not been fastened solely at the ends,. The invention now in question professes to have as an object the remedying of some of the defects disclosed by this state of practice and knowledge: ; The specification ascrites to the bag the subjectéew of the invention four cherecteristics which it muet have and then adds two further characteristics the addition of either or both of which will presumably make a further improved container, The first escential characteristic is, that it shall consist of several plies of light weight paper. The second is that the plies'of paper shall be moveable relatively to each other, The third is that it shall be closed. by sewing stapling or the like, The fourth is that the various plies shall be held in frictional contact. In the course o¢ stating those] Slonents the specification explains the advantage oa each gives. The first two permit bending and folding without & < vit sont cesta Me i est weakening. They give a flexibility which enablee the formation of a valve by folding which will close satisfactorily, The multiply sheets are stronger and more durable than a single sheet of weight equal to 'their joint weight. The sewing stepling or the like avoids the neces- sity of pasting each ply of the several plies of paper. In multiply walle it does not introduce the weakness it would in a single shioxnog: Although the specification may not contain a categorical statement to that effect, it is cleer from its whole tenor that the fastening should be at each end and only there. Further it likewise appears with sufficient clearness that the fricticnal contact (the fourth of the elements I have extracted) is at the seams: it "compensates for any "weakening of the plies due to perforations formed in closing", Tae <P &, use of sewing or stapling tof@ig¢ close paper bags of several plies is ws justified by the specifioation thus, x firet, the weakening effect of the line of perforation is less with the miltipliee, second, bending along the line of perforations, which further weakens single walls, has little effect on the' more flexible multiplies, third,the frictional contact of one ply with anther along the line of the closures furnish- ega strengtheningfeature which is absent from similar closures in single walled bags." These four elements having been briefly mentioned in the specifi- ed Vo eation it proceeds to state the fifth. This is to be manifest in "ae further embodiment of the present invention" and consists in providing in the bag at the junction of the end fastening with the vertical side, av material adheres to the thread.as well as the juxtaposed paper. wall of the bag a valve formed by folding in the wall of the bag. The sixth element consists in the further addition that the valve liself shall be composed of a plurality of plies of paper so infolded i.e.that one only of the plies shall not be folded in to form the valve. Besides these features upon which the specifier concentrates there is a@ number of other:matters which enterf into "preferred conatructions" of the invention and find a place in some of the claime, 'It ds preferred to apply at the ends to be closed a tape on both sides | Pa to reinforce the place of stitching or stapling. It is preferred to use adhesive tape. It is preferred in making the bag to apply the adhesive tape Ammo dtabely) in advance of the needle so that the adhesive [4 ye | t 10, To prevent ravelling and give strength,it is preferred to extend the tape beyond the walls of the bag at each cornes# particularly ata corner where there ie a valve, It is preferred to construct the bag by folding layere of paper to make a nest of tubes each outelide the others, It is preferred to have vertical bellows folde at each side of the collapsed bags: the valve is then made in one of the bellows folds which is folded down to form so to speak a horizontal channel. Last,a preference is expressed that involves an implication upon which the petitioner places great reliance, "It is preferred",the specifie cation runs "to make the layers of which the bag is composed entirely separate except for the end closures. This allows the free play of ue one layer with respect to the other and reduces to a minimum the tendency to crack and furthermore it allows the removal of one layer without destroying the entire bag. Also "It is preferred" to construc wheel oo these layere from tubss @ee nested one within the other and are entirely unconnected to each other except by the end oleate seams, It is obvious that this preference implies that the invention may be em- bodied in bags where complete relative movability between the plies a limited by a junction peteen the plies at other places besides the éloss ends. sec of the utility of the bag arises from the degree of. relative movability of the Plies which it allows. The petitioner, A taaretore, suggeststhat actually Shis important point did not apbect, — 9 the inventors or specifiers and therefore should not xa now be Vv 38/2 : relied 'upon as affording er contributing to subject matter, I do "not '80 understand the specification. I think relative movability of plies strongly appealed to the inventors but they considered that its presence was a matter of degree. They in effect say the highest degree is obtained by joining the plies only at the end closures but that less degrees of relative movability are within their invention. The olain- ing clauses.of the specification amount in number to no: 1e8s than trenty eight. _ They are constructed upon the "chain" principle and in "the clains which succeed the first the formula adopted is, - ta paper : v vad Caimes in any at 'the "(or some specified) "preceding claims, : characterised by" such bi such additional teaitane which is described, wt 13. Some proceedings arising out of an application to amend the specifica- tion(which was substantially unsuccessful) were taken to the Privy ~ Council, In the course of these proceedings the effect of this form of claim was discussed, The petitioner contends that it was decided in thie Court that the invention claimed by each of the claims express- ed in this form consisted not in combining the various features con- tained in that claim and the preceding claims, but in giving to a bag having features referred to in the preceding claims the new feature described in that clain, The respondent on fast other hand contends that the course of the argument in the Privy Council shgows that their Lordships considered each of the "chain" olaims to amount to an ordinary combination claim i ROP Sas oa ee Eee ET sai 1g : 4. or a series of combination claims. The difference betwen these two/ views of the claims appears to me to be of less practical importance in comsidering whether the patent should be revoked than upon the question which faxkgs fell to be decided in the former proceedings, namely, whether a proposed amendment containing a combination claim compo sed of many integers did or did not claim an invention substantial ly larger than or different from the invention claimed by the original specification, Which ever view is taken of the effect of the form of claim I think the claims will be found to cover a combination of tk all the essentialf features which can reasonably ,relied anon as affoxding subject matter and none of the other questions in the case [eA if is much affected by the distinction, I proceed to state the effect of the more material og the © Claims. The first as I read it is a claim for a bag adapted for heavy VY servica(i.e. for containing charges too heavy or fglinaine usage too rough for a single ply not so thiak as to be liable to crack) construct ed with three features, These features are (i) plurality of plies of paper (41) relative movability at places subjeoted to bending (iii) Slofsure of one or both ends by sewing stapling or the like, & The second claim adds the feature that the plies are relatively moveabl near the closure. The seventh claim adds the feature that the closure is effected by © sewing with a reinforcing strip, The eight and ninth add to this the ma 16, adhesive charadte@ of the reinforcing strip and the use of adhesive tape. The tenth and eleventh add the valwe at a closed end formed by eewing stapling or the like. The twelfth and fifteenth claims add the formation of the valve by infolding the wall of the bag and doing so at the end of a bellows fold. The fourteenth claim introduced vw the bellows fold and the sixteenth the method of folding ite form a valve, The nineteenth claim adds to a bag made with the features comprised in any of thea previous claims the construction by a nested ". series of tubes attached to each other at the ends where the bag is Aa closed, The twentieth claim begins a new chain, The features which it claims are (i) plurality of plies (ii) relative movability at place: ite 17. <f Subj ecteéto bending(iii) a valve formed by infolding-the wall (iv) at the junction of the wall with the end closure. The method of fast~ ening by sewing stapling or the like is not claimed as an integer in the combination, The twentyeébond claim adds to this combination the bellows fold and the position of the valve at the junction of the bellows fold with the closure. The twenty~fifth claim adds the use in the valve of the plurality of the plies of paper which are relatively moveable, In considering whether, in all this aggregation, subject matter for an invention is to be found it is necessary first to determine in what, if any respect the patentees' bag was new. In addressing myself to this question I commence from the state~ ment of common knowledge made earlier in this judgment. I take tate gt is 18, account what is disclosed by Priem's specification and by the specifi- WA cations of the 1906 and 1922 patents granted to Pates one of the laren tom WA inventors of the subject patent and ,for what it is worth, the specifica— ) Shave been / tion of the American invention ¢meyere of one Sandere published at the ae Public Library Perth Western Australia on the 23rd September 1912. I attach little importance to the testimony given about the so called rubbish bag said to have been multiply sewn and that given about a bag said to have been used by a firm in Brighton(Victoria) named Hayball Bros. I do not think this evidence can be relied on as giving & Gependatle account of the real construction of the vags. Mt any rate Iam not prepared to act upon it. } 19. Evidence was given about a number of other bags @.g. a so Called aeata~ logue bag, a coke bag, a nailbag,a bag used in the laboratory of Elldoti Bros.Sydney, bags for tea coffee and the like,and a bag seen at Simpson Sydeey, & Mann's manufac ory. While this evidence illustrates common knowledge, none of it would afford a satisfactory basis for formulating a method of construction for any specific bag. All of it in combination would fall short of supplying a design embodying the features relied upon as supporting subject matter of the invention now in question, Another matter going to common knowledge is a machine known as Strachan & Henshaw's. It is used in Melbourne to make block bottom bags. It adjusts the sheets of paper into the necessary form to make these bage, Mr Gibson who saw thef machine said in effect that there 20. was no adjustment which could be readily made so as to paste the plies of paper at the bottom of the bag together if desired, The machine as operating was pasting the outer sheet to itself. Mr Gibson then went on to say that that is an unsatisfactory closure of a bag for carrying @ heavy load, I have treated these matters as going to common knowkedge as well as to prior user in m stricté# sense,but in either aspect they are open to the observations made by Astbury J. in Boyoe v. Morris Motors Ld. (44 R,P.C.105 at p. 135 iv@h "When a patent, "especially one of a simple character, has proved a commercial success, "evidence of alleged prior user requires and ought to receive Careful "sorutiny, and evidence of something that was nearly, but not quite, "a prior user is not relevant as-such to an allegation of want of ay cae "subject-matter ina subsequent patent", It cannot ,however,be said that any of these are new 2m the Aa present invention. I think the patentees' bag exhibits an association of features which tza/new. ' It associates multiplies of light weight paper,fasten ing at the ends,sewing or stapling,frictional contact of all the plies at the sewn or stapled fastening, and relative movability adjacemt thereto and elsewhere, by allowing complete absence of a fastening of the plies at any other point. This arrangement permits conveniently -the bellows fold and thes infolded valve; and the fact that they can be accommodated and are in fact used, as well as claimed as further integers,cannot be disregarded. It is no part of a patentee's duty in his specification to explain either how he beached his invention ~ 2 sien tosses tose : : Vv 22, Y (srition United Shoe Machinery Company Ld. v. Fussell & Sons Ld (25 ReP.C.631 at pp.651 -652) or the exact mechanical principles upon which it depends. But it does appear from the specification that the specifiers saw that strength and flexibility could best be achieved by seeking the highest degree of relative movability in manifold plies that seams at the ends would give this; that seqing of manifold plies gave a strong closure and yet allowed the bag to open out when filled. Next, before deoiding whether or not this advance discloses suffieient subject matter for a grant,it is desirable to consider the utility of the alleged invention. Now, it cannot be denied that the respondent! commercial bag has achieved a most remarkable/success in Australia, Indeed its "success accounts for the importancethat both parties give to these 3 Bs VY revocation proceedings. In my opinion three matters contribute to #/ and have brought about this commeroial success, The first factor ia that a bag constructed according to the alleged invention has proved very efficient, The reasons for this are explained by Mr Gibson whose evidence I accept, In the next place the actual manufacture of the wo bage is conducted withoare aot soonomy and skill, In the third place the sale dha distribution has been pressed with ingenuity,enterprise and business diplomacy, But while the presence and importance of the second and third factors are undeniable,they would have been of little or no avail without the faérst. The fact is that no paper bag for heavy service has been able to succeed in the absence of any PETA Vee one of these integere!' ml tipliee, high degree of relative maxaexii é Ve a4, movability,sewn or stapled seams at the ende,and infolded valve, It remains to decide whether in these circumstances the advance by the alleged invention involves a sufficient exercise of the inven- tive faculties to afford subject matter. " The question whether the discovery claimed constitutes invention such as will support the validity of a grant 1s a question of fast . Ht to be determined in each case upon all the relevant circumstances, Ore Concentration Company (1905) v. Sulphide Corporation Ld.(31 R.P. C.206 at p. 226. A discovery that a known thing can be used to prod duce effects previously unknown although it may be a great and useful discovery does not amount to a patentable invention. It adds to t knowle nothing bu wiedge, But if the @ddition is not merely to Ke knowledge but produces a new and useful thing or result or a new mw eg Y method of producing an old thing or result that is subject matter; per LT. Sord Lindley ia Lans-Fox v. The Xensington and Knightsbridge Electric Lighting Company (Limited) (9 R.P.C.413 at p. 416, Ina well known passage in Viokers,Sons and Co_v. Siddell(7 R.P.C. 292 at p. 30% Y Lord Herechell states the test ae to whether the step was obvious that - ~ it would at once occur to anyone acqudinted with the subject and desi- rous of accopplishing the end or whether it requires some invention to devise it, He then says " there is no doubt about the law applicable "to such a question, though it is often difficult to apply it to the "siroumetances of a particular case,and its application is perhaps: "most diffioult when the alleged invention conshets of a new apparatua a Wy 26, "combining known elements. If the apparatus oe valuable by reason of "ite simplicity,there is a danger of being misled by that very simplicity "into the belief that no invention was needed to produce it. But "experience has shewn that not 5 few inventions,some of which have revo- "lutionised the industries of this country,have been of so simple a "character that when once they have been made known it was difficult "to understand how the idsa had been so long in presenting itself,or "not to believe that they must have beerpbvious to everyone", But "a mere selection among possible alternatives is not subject matter. A selection to be patentable must be a selection in order to secure - pome advantage or avoid some disadvantage. Tt must be an adaptation yes 27, * of means to ends impossible without exercise of the inventive faculty;*" per Lord Parker in_Clyde Nail Company Ld. v, Russel11(33 R.P.0.291 at y 306 and of.Auster ld v. Perfecta Motor Equipments La(41 R.P.C, 482 at p.497. "It may be only @ small step but it is a step forward and tha "is all that is necessary",said Lord Warrington of Cliffe on behalf of the Privy Counedl in Canadian Gemeral Electrics Co,Ld. v. Fada Radio bd 47 ALP.0.71 at p.90,in 'dealing with an integer not in itself new vat given a partioular use in combination with other elements of a system for a specific purpose and producing an advantageous result; Simpligity ina combination is not in iteelf a sufficient answer to its validity, The question is one of degree and an important element in : the consideration whether there has been invention or not is, whether C a 27a the thing never having been done before it is a great success as regard utility and value in the markep. Although these considerations are not conolusive of ingenuity they demand an answer to the question why, unless there is somes ingemity,it was never done before; see per Lord Shaw in British Vacuum Company v. London & S.W.Rlgs Co.(1912) 29 R.P.C 309 at p, 330 citing Bowen L.J, in American Braided Wire Co. v. Thom- son (5 RP.C, 113 at p.125. It must be a real advance but if a development be one of utility and satisfies a long felt waat in the trade,the presumption,not of law but of fact,arises that it enbodies inventive ingenuity. The presumption may be displaced by evidence explaining the circumstances and the question mst be answered in the v fm 27b end whether there is a fresh departure in inventive skill or for fe instance a natural development of already inchoate art, sea Lord Haldane L.C, British Vacuum Co. v. _James Robertshaw (1915) 32 RPP. c. 4ehat p. ug. Objections of want of novelty and of subject matter often cover common ground although so far as possible they require separate con- sideration ;. ses per Lord Herschel] in Viokers,Sons and Co.Ld. v.Siddel 28, (7 RP .0,292 at p.304), If a man with some or all of the alleged anticipations before v him and grappling with the problem intended to be solved by the, inven- v tion tha gubjetines—tie-presentepatent, would say "that gives me what I "wish" there is neither novelty hor subject matter. But if,with all this information and with common kndwledge, ingenuity was required to take the step disclosed by the saoaent patent there is both novelty and fear J wabject matter, Gz, the phrases quoted in Pops Appliance Corporation v. | |/ Spanish River Pulp and Paper Mills La, (4b R.P.0.23 at p.52). I have come to the conclusion that the invention possesses sub- ject matter, It is needless to'say that it lies in the judicious association of known elements or expedients; that no great departure yw 3¢ 29. / from received methods is involved and that if called rather for a happy exercise of judgment founded upon experience and experiment than for a stroke of intuition or speculative imagination. But nevertheles there was an obstacle to sha be surmounted. The expedienta wers at hand but no one had made the right selection. By a judicious choi_ce among them based, as I think, tion an appreciation of their operation and mutual interaction the obstacle was surmounted, The demand wafor such a bag was there: it wae implicit in the disadvantages of existing methods and practices. The invention alone seems to have anewered it In my opinion enough ingenuity was needed and is inherent in the association or combination to amount to invention, I think that subject matter exists in the firet claim but more clearly in the seconé 25" a 30. tenth, twelfth, fourteenth,fifteenth,eixteenth and nineteenth claims. I proceed to consider the alleged anticipaticne. This case emphasises the justice of the observations made ty herd Aa dwetice Fletcher Moubton (as he then was) in British Ore Concentration Syndicate Ld v. Minerals Separation Bd.(26 R.P.C,124 at p. 147 "It cannot be too carefully kept in mind in patent law thet, in order "0 rendezb document a prior publication of an invention,it must be "shown that it publishes to the world the whole invention ~ i.e. ail "that is material to instruct the public how to put the invention in "practice, It is not-enough that there should be suggestions which, "taken with suggestions derived from other and independent documents, "may be shown to foreshadow the inventicn or important eteps in it. "Since the date of the vigorovud protest by Lord Justice James against "such 2 'me afb of prior publications this has been a universally A : 31. "accepted and most salutary principle, It applies with exceptional "forde in oases where the alleged prior publications are the Specifica- "tions of unsuccessful inventicns which have accordingly never passed "into public general knowledge but have rightly been forgotten, " All nf experience emphasizes. in my mind the justice of this rule. "The industrial and scientific problems,which face mankind,are being "attacked all over the world by busy inventive minds from the most "varied points of view, When some lucky inventor has been successful "in solving the problem and « whether for the purposesof an ection or "otherwise — the records of abt: failure or incomplete success are £ "searched, it is common to find that suggestions or adumbretions of each "of the various steps, by which he has achieved his result,are to be "found in some one or other of the works of those who have gone before "him, though in different connection and forming part of a different "and probably unsuccessful procasae When such records are selected "from a macs of antecedent publications and put in an isoleted form : a UY "before tke Court , there is a danger of their giving rise to a suspicion "of & general lack of novelty in the successful invention. But it 32. "must be xensutrenddremenbered that these alleged prior publications "are the product of a selection made with a knowledge of the success- ~ (\"fal invention,and that probably hundreds of proposals equally promising "tut which point in wholly different directicns,have been £uikx rejectec "in the search by reason that they do 60. It ig somewhat as though "one were to decry the merit of a proppector who had discovered that "sands were auriferous by showing that after due rejection of most of "the non-metallic particles from a handful of sand the gold may be mad "to appear visible to the naked eye," Almost every word of this appears to be applicable not only tothe paper anticipations relied upon but also to the instances of prior user, I can deal quite shortly with each of the anticipations cited. The first relied on is an invention No 5158 of 1906 by A.D.patee one of Sabeck Viva tann V the inventors of the, aiijacipatens, It isa single ply valve bag of "+ 4 2 33. any material, Presumably the petitioner cited thie inventicn in re- lation to the valve. But in any case I am prepared to believe that . valves in containers form part of the stock of common knowledge. It is no anticipation, As to Priem's invention, No 12,223 of 1910, it is ehough to say that it missed the entire point of relative mova~ bility between the plies wherever possible and needlessly fastened the Plies together vertically, The subject acveution by providing a olosu at each end and only at the ends makes it unnecessary to limit the relative movability of the plies at ay other point. Any fixed con nection of two plies at any poinfexoept the ends is therefore due to wome cause or requirement which is accidental and forms no part of the subject invention which deprecates any limitation of movability. & Priem's invention is no anticipation. ul of an American patent of 1912 + (No .1029893) alleged to have been published at the Perth Publis Library. This citation was"not pressed in argument, I am not clear that proof was offered"in proper form but in any case the suggestion that it is ah antigipation must fail, It relates to the making of lined paper bage ~ bags made with the inner and outer walls of different mat6rials, It shows that paper bags may be made of separate rolls-Of paper tor the inner and outer bags with freedom of relative-movement but the whole objectkxam of the invention isdifferent om that of the subject patent. The relative movement is enable the bags to slip one from another as the bags are filled expanded, Where strength is desired at the bottom of the bag the terfeiding,—The_inyention-incidsntally illustrates . the bello toids—i+-i¢6-ebvicusly—no—anticipation_and_no_doubt— was_cited tor Sper. edal-—features, No 8&91 of 1ge2 another invention ¢ A,D.Bates is for @ process and apparatue YO making and TI1litg bags. ~The bag is a eingl v ply bag of any material, expressly including paper. The invention is fo a machine for the manufacture of bags. The machine produces a tube of 4th a Me, material sewn at the longitudinal joint in the case of 'awoven fabrics ex I does nit iter wh fr 100% Kibes @deth and pasted in the case of Paper. Tt does uak provide for closing a section cut off the tube transversely by sewing and in the case o f fgager provides for sg, reinforcing strip, Except for these features it ie not in point. The next question is whether the alleged invention was actually communicated in Australia to the Pubrio before it régeived protection. Tha question arises from the circumstance that at or about the time the., an patent was applied forjone McAuliffe,who had been entrusted by the patentees,who carried on business in the United States of America, with the task of forming a company or syndicate in Australia to exploit the invention, showed and explained it to several persons. The patent was applied for on 17th February 1925 and MoAuliffe arrived here on 6th February 1925, A question of fact arises whether I am eatiefied that the invention was thus explained before the 17th February 1925. McAu~ : liffe gave evidehce. His credibility was attacked on grounds which I Meigonde uynig thar Jacgree Kat much enectrin Shh te ercciad ui aces he, koe need not enter into It will be sufficient for me to state my conolu- sions. There are two questions - whether the bags were shown and at "what dates. Upon the first question I think the bags were shown in the Hotel Australia Sydney to(Hiliians, Randall ,Corben, Humphries, Symonds, Beattie and Newnan and T think a sample bag was intrusted to Randall for his closer inspection and examination, On the. second ques- "tion Iam quite satisfied that thet the bag was not shown to Mr Hughes until after the 17th February 1925. I am, however, satisfied that the inspection by Williams and the other persons abovensued (occurred before Sf the 17th February 1925. Apart from the statute the fact that, prior a to the application, some Australian people under no obligation of secrecy arising from confidence or good faith towards the patentees ne ntl : knew of the invention would avoid the grant; see per Fry L.J. Humpherson ve. Syer(4 R.P.C,407 at p, 44, "I cannot see that the persons to whom "othe bag was shown by McAuliffe were "under any duty of secrecy or in any : Klos relation of confidence or ander any obligation of good faith, Wha_t MoAvliffe's duty was to his pringipais is immaterial; the question is what knowledge was imparted to persons entitled to use it as members of the: public. But in my opinion an answer to this ground of the petition is given by section 124 of the Patents Mot 1903 - 1921. This section adopted from section 5 of the South Australian Patents Act, Amendment VY 40+,1882 44 & 45 Vie. No 201,18 as. follows:- "The fact that an invention has been exhibited or tested either publicly. or privately shall not in itself be deemed a ground. for "refusing a patent. ' "Provided that any public exhibition or testing must have been within "one year of the date of the inventor lodging his application for a "patent", : ene provision ispuzzling and-an examination of the previous State 39. a legislation which was made in the course of the argument before me increases rather than diminishes the doubte as to the purpose inspiring ee 16 tints. enactment. Undoubtedly such provisions arose out of the desire Q 6 to allow new inventions to be displayed without riek at general exhibi- tions of Arte and Manufactures. met think the present federal sectior must dn ite terms be treated as of general application and as intending to abwogate to a wide extent and ina striking wap the operation of the principle that there should be no prior public gxpasuxa disclosure or communication of the invention. : I an of opinion that the expression "exhibited Publicly or prigate- : 'ly" means submitted for inspection either by persone who may choose to examine it simply as members of the public or by persons individually xl pee fy selected or permitted to see it ee menbers of a specified class or the like. I think tha bag vas subnitted for inspection by persons chosen by McAuliffe seaivignarte vaseeee of their probable or prospec~ tive interest in the matter. Eyhat. wes done was,in my opinion, justifi ed under section 124 as private exhibition of the invention. I+ was argued that all section 12k oe is that exhibition shall be no gxound for refusing a patent and that it was not in point when the question was one of revocation, I do not agree with this argunent. The reason for cexanakias a a revoking a patent granted for an invention previously disclosed was 'that the invention ought not to have been granted. If notwithstanding. v aw parece TETE wy the prior disclosure the patent was properly granted it ought not to be revoked, The last ground of attack upon the patent was that the specifica tion was inaufficient and avoidably obscure and ambiguous. This attack is based on the use at various places of importance in the specification of vague or insxact expressions, The particulars of objections under this head are = "The specification of the said Letters Patent is vague ambiguous and un- "certain inaemuoh as the claiming clauses thereof do not sufficiently in- "dicate the invention or inventions in respect of which a monopoly is ""olaimed," No greater particularity was sought by the respondent and none vouchsafed by the petitioner. The language was criticized which describes the purpose of the invention as being to furnish bags for "heavy" service, to contain a "heavy" charge, and to stand "rough usage", It was asked what was meant by "several" plies anda "glurality" of plies, What thickness of paper was specified ? What are the places subjected to bending and what is "relative movability of the plies" there required? Does the specification make entire freedom between the plies part of the s invention? When it speaks of "sewing stapling or the like" what is covered by "the like"? These and similar criticisims were inter- epersed in the argument of other questions requiring reference to the specification and it ie not easy to say exactly how far the petitioner presses this ground and on what it relies. " But I think the specifier fulfilled his obligation oW describing ~ Ss alee ly the ambit of the monoply claimed and of explaining how to carry aA the invention into effect, - = - The purpose for which the bage should be used cannot be stated in . words of precision, Thickness of paper, number of plies, weight of charge and roughness of handling are all interdependent. The person who require sh es a container is expected to use some common sense or judgment in choosing the material and the number of plies in reference to the goods to be put in it and the usage it is likely to experience in the course of handling. So the places subjected to bending depend upon the dimen~ VY sions of the bag, the use or absence of the bellows fold,and the nature of the charge. (As to the words "the like" they obviously are used to prevent in- fringement by resott to some equivalent of sewing or stapling which the specifier cannot exactlyforesee. JI have already expressed my opinion upon the meaning of the specificationnin relation to the complete J movebility of the plies inter se. tt have not thought it necessary to consider the validity of every claim. I do not think the 6ourt ought ot! 4y, os CuK A he funn, Gheo so, to revoke single claims where the substance of the patent is upheld, On the whole case I think the petition fails and should be dis« missed with costs including the costs of the shorthand notes¢ ap.