Rose Holdings Pty Ltd v Carlton Shuttlecocks Ltd [1957] HCA 48

Foll Yamazaki Pillay Aust Appl Sun Mazak Corp v pelea sf ew

Michine BROT ER Rita Toon if (foo ° fe

444 HIGH COURT [1957.

(HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

ROSE HOLDINGS PROPRIETARY LIMITED PETITIONER ;

AND CARLTON SHUTTLECOCKS LIMITED ' REsronDENnT. H.C. or A. Patents—Revocation—Specification—Requirement of full description of invention— 1957. Meaning—Novelty—Prior paper publication—Each publication to be considered es) separately—Patents Act 1952-1955 (No. 42 of 1952—No. 3 of 1955), ss. 40, Merpourne, 100 (1) (¢), (¢), (9)- J 4, 5 ce ge. Section 40 of the Patents Act 1952-1955 provides that (1) A complete = specification (a) shall fully describe the invention, including the best method Sypyey, of performing the invention which is known to the applicant ; and (b) shall Tuly 5. end with a claim or claims defining the invention. (2) The claim or claims

Williams J. shall be clear and succinct and shall be fairly based on the matter described in the specification.

Held, that the requirement that the invention shall be fully described in the specification means no more than that the inventor shall fully describe what he claims to have invented. It may turn out that what he claims to have invented is not an invention at all because eg. it is not novel but that would not prevent the specification from complying with s. 40. A full description of the invention does not require the patentee to distinguish between the integers, if any, which are new and those which are old.

Section 100 (1) (g) of the Patents Act provides that a patent may be revoked on the ground that the invention so far as claimed in any claim was not novel in Australia on the priority date of that claim.

Held, that where it is alleged that a patent is not novel because the invention has already been disclosed in a prior paper publication each publication must be considered separately and it is not permissible to make a mosaic of publications.