Hargans v Commissioner of Patents [1932] HCA 60

8 CLR.) OF AUSTRALIA. 609

McTiernan J. I have read the judgment of the Chief Justice and 4. ©. or A. brother Dixon, and agree in their conclusions and reasons. pati

FEDERAL

Appeal allowed. Order of Lowe J. set aside and Comms-

appeal from the disallowance of the taxpayer's Tasarce objections to the assessment remitted to they. Supreme Court. Costs of the appeal to this

Court costs in the cause.

'Solicitor for the appellant, W. H. Sharwood, Crown Solicitor for e Commonwealth. Solicitors for the respondent, Aitken, Walker & Strachan.

H.D.W. ei.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

APPELLANT ;

AND

COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS. RESPONDENT.

"" Decision" by Commissioner—Three claims—Two rejected for want of H.C. or A.

subject matter—Applicant directed to amend application, specification and third 1939, claim—Appeal to High Court—Competency of appeal—Patents Act 1903-1930 = "~ (No. 21 of 1903—No. 76 of 1930), secs. 4, 42*, 43*, 46%, 47*, Sypyey,

Nov. 18; An application for a patent for an improved method of preparing rabbits Dec. 5.

_ for the marketing of the carcase and skin was adversely reported upon by eke We

the examiner. Following upon representations made by the applicant, he Dixon, Evatt and MeTiernan

'The Patents Act 1903-1930 pro- 3—By sec. 42: "If the examiner ts adversely to the application or

ion on any matter referred to thirty-nine and forty, the mmissioner may—(a) require com- by the applicant within a speci-

ed time with such directions for the

amendment of the application or the specification as the Commissioner sees fit to give." By sec. 43:—"(1) An appeal shall lie to the Law Officer from any direction of the Commissioner under the ing section. (2) The Law Officer shall hear the applicant and the Commissioner and shall decide whether

HarGans

=

Commis-

SION Pare:

R OF

HIGH COURT (1932.

received a document headed "Decision of the Deputy Commissioner" in which the Deputy Commissioner expressed the opinion that two of the three claims in the specification were bad for want of subject matter, and, pur- porting to act under sec. 42 of the Patents Act 1903-1930, directed the applicant to delete those two claims and otherwise to amend the application and specifica- tion so as to limit them to the third claim.