N.V. PHILLIPS' GLOEILAMPENFABRIEKEN V. THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS

4078/85

W.-M. Houston, Govt. Print.. Melb.

Ne

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered at... MELBOURNE... on... LUBSDAY,,..18TH. MARCH,..1958....-

N,V. PHILIPS ' GLOELLAMPENFABRIEKEN

ve

THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS .

ORDER

Appeal allowed. Order that the Commissioner accept the application and

specification lodged by the appellant on the

20th December 1951.

can

by

MW. PELLIPS' GLOBILAMPENFABRIEKEH

Ve

wv St

THE ie) .

the This is an appeal pursuant to s. 47 of/Patents Act

1903-1950 from the refusal of the Commissioner to accept an application, accompanied by a complete specification, for letters patent for an invention with respect to improvements in or relating to magnet heads for use in conjunction with magnetic recording equipment. The application and specification were lodged on the 20th December, 1951 and after an examiner had reported adversely to the application various amendments were suggested by the appellant. Subsequently the Commissioner, after hearing the appellant, refused to accept the application and in doing so gave reasons why, in his opinion, neither the original specification nor the specification, as the appellant proposed to amend it to overcome the objections raised, could be regarded as acceptable. Upon the hearing before me counsel were disposed, initially at least, to treat the appeal as if it were limited to the question whether the Commissioner was wrong in refusing to accept the application supported by a specification amended in the manner proposed. But at the conclusion of the evidence - which dealt comprehensively with topics relevant to the matter generally - counsel for the appellant made it clear that he did not wish to abandon a claim that the original application should have 'een accepted and both the original specification and the proposed amendments were discussed at length. Upon reflection I am unable to see why, in the circumstances of the case, the whole matter should not now be regarded as open. In spite of the directions given on the 21st July 1955 the whole matter was, in effect, before the Commissioner when he gave his final decision and he was free, if he had thought proper to do so, to accept the application accompanied either by the original specification or by the specification as the appellant proposed that it should