ALUMINO THERMIC AND METAL SPRAYERS LIMITED V. THE ENGINEERING SPECIALISTS PTY. LTD. 28/1928

ho BE Gf (G20 J |

C Mire . AeomercerE

Bel wareh 2(13.(¢29

a

LUMINO THERMIC -AND METAL SPRAYERS "LIMITED

v :

THE ENGINEERING SPECIALTIES PROPRIETARY LIMITED.

JUDGMENT. KNOX C.J, CAVAN. DUFFY J

Having regard to the statements contained in the Introduc- tion and in pages 1 - 14 of Turner & Budgents work on Metal Spray- ing and to the admission made at the trial that thal book contains an. acourate general description of, the development of the art before the patemt on which the appellant relies was taken out, and the evi-"

'dence of ir. E.P,Lewig, @@ think the learned Chief Justice of Victoria

as right in construing the claima contained in the specification as

imited to the bringing forward of wire cable, bar, tube, sheet, ait e

sthip or other solid material to a point at which it has to be fused from the solid to the liquid state and thence to be sprayed and as not including the bringing forward of atomized or pulverulent metals to that point. In this view it is clear that the respondent has not

infringed the appellantts patent.

In ag opinion the appe&& showld be dismissed,

UIC AND METAL SeRayuns Ll Pep.

Vv.

Tid MUCTNSERING SPNCIALTIES 1:

JUDG. ; MR-JUSTICN RICH. -

RING SPECT AT.

ORM LIL

RtCH J.

I egres that the appeal should be digwissed. The cleim

which the appelisnt relics is expressed in curiougly vague snd indefinite langusge. After a full examination of the waterlals by which the state ¢ the art sua comtron knowledge is brough! before the Court I find myself unable to discover in the claim as drawn the expression of an inventive

idea which is new and wide enough to include the respondent's implement

constituting the elleged infringenent.

JUDGMENT.

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COURT COPY

(pages 1-14.)

ALUMINO THERMIC' COY. v

ENGINEERING SPECIALTIES COMPANY.

MR. JUSTICE ISAACS.

|

ALUMINO THURMIC coy. v

ENGINESRING SPSCIALTIES Coy.