Goldman v Bramley [1936] HCA 35

weed HIGH COURT [1936.

H.C. or A. recent Tasmanian Act is to confine it to " criminal issues" jomed ke after the Act was passed. On that view the majority rule was

inapplicable to the present issue.

Making. The appeal should be allowed.

Appeal allowed.

Solicitors for the appellant, Shields, Heritage & Stackhouse. Solicitor for the respondent, 4. Banks-Smith, Crown Solicitor for Tasmania, by F. G. Menzies, Crown Solicitor for Victoria.

H. D: We (HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.] GOLDMAN. z $ é e ¢ 3 . APPELLANT ; AND BRAMDLEW is visit) dauies: E j r F . REsPoNnDEN?.

H.C. or A, Patent—Provisional specification—Amendment—Validity—Duty of commissioner— Patents Act 1903-1930 (No. 21 of 1903—No. 76 of 1930), sec. 42.

Ww

mre oreie The Commissioner of Patents communicated to an applicant for letters SAR patent the contents of an examiner's report to the effect that the provisional git specification did not state the title of the invention and did not sufficiently Sypney, describe the invention, and stated that "if desired" argument in rebuttal Aug. 13. of the examiner's objection or amendment with a view to the removal of the Ate, 2 Dicotk objection might be submitted. The applicant submitted another document and Evatt JJ. as an amended specification, and the amendments were allowed.

Held that sec. 42 of the Patents Act 1903-1930 had been complied with. The section did not require that the precise amendments be directed or that a time be fixed within which amendment should be made.

55 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

Apres from the Deputy Commissioner of Patents.

Edward Bramley applied for a grant of letters patent for an invention for "an improved automatic safety device for motion picture projectors." The application was dated 17th August 1932 and was accompanied by a provisional specification of the same date, which was referred to an examiner. The examiner reported that the provisional specification did not conform to the require- ments of sec. 39 of the Patents Act 1903-1930. The Commissioner of Patents informed Bramley of this fact, and Bramley lodged an amended provisional specification dated 16th January 1933. On 14th July 1933 the examiner reported that the amended provisional specification removed the objections formerly taken. On 17th August 1933 Bramley lodged the complete specification. On 21st November 1933 Mark Goldman gave notice of opposition to the grant of a patent to Bramley, on the grounds that the complete specification described an invention other than that described in the provisional specification, and that such other invention formed the subject of an application made by Goldman in the interval between the leaving of the provisional specification and the leaving of the complete specification. The Deputy Commissioner of Patents dismissed the opposition and granted letters patent to Bramley.