High Court of Australia
WR YTIO (¥ ___ YD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF. AUSTRALIA.
Hume Pipe Company (Australia) i Limited
v.
Monier Industries Limited (Pe. application No. 102892)
"REASONS FOR JUDGMENT. Judgment delivered at__Melbourne | om BX Grom, Gort Pe Mee on__8th November 190 __
— sa
re Application No. 102892 by
Monier Industries Ltd.
HUME PIPE COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LTD. ve
MONIER INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Order :
Appeal allowed with costs. Decision of Deputy Commissioner of Patents set aside and in lieu thereof opposition upheld with costs to the opponent and application
for letters patent dismissed.
HUME PIPE COMPANY (AUSTRALIA) LIMITED AND MONIER INDUSTRIES LIMITED.
E MPANY (AUS' ITED v. MONIER. NDUSTRIES LIMITED. JDGMENT . RICH £0.05;
In the matter of the application No 102,892 for Letters Patent the crux of the decision of the Deputy Commissioner is that he was not sufficiently satisfied tnat the feature of "multiple springs disposed" in opposition to one another so as to place the vibrating table ina kind of resilient balance did not give nove.Ity to the combination, Whatever may be the truth in respect of this supposed feature of the invention I am clearly of opinion that it is not distinctly made the subject of any claim nor properly embodied in any claim and that in the body of the specification only the most cloudy account of it is to be found, In these circumstances I am unable to uphold the decision of the Deputy Commissioner.
In my opinion the appeal should be allowed,the decision of the
Deputy Commissioner discharged and the application for a patent refused.
° The respondent co mpany' should pay the costs of the appeal and the appli- eation Berore heb leputy Commissioner,
STARKE J.
The respondent, in Veceaber 1956, made appiication No. 102,892 for the grant of Letters Patent for an improved machine for concussionaiiy vibrating concrete articles for the consolid- ating of the concrete during the setting thereof. the applicatim was opposed by the ap eant on the ground that the invention was not novel, The Veputy Commissioner of Patents determined that Letters Patent should issue, whereupon the appeliant appea- led to this Court against his determination.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate