No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 January 2025
The opinions expressed in this Comment are those of the author. They are not necessarily those of the Attorney-General's Department nor of any other Commonwealth Department, authority or officer.
1 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 54 A.L.J.R. 254 (hereafter referred to as “Minnesota”) High Court of Australia; Barwick C.J., Stephen, Mason, Aickin and Wilson JJ. Noted: (1980) 11 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 712 and Lahore, Intellectual Property in Australia; (1981), Bulletin No. 1, 7-8.
2 S. 59(1)(g) of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth) states: “The Minister or a person interested may . . . oppose the grant of the patent on one or more of the following grounds, but on no other ground: that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim, was obvious and did not involve an inventive step, having regard to what was known or used in Australia on or before the priority date of that claim;”.
Minnesota was followed by Fullagar J. in opposition proceedings in Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Monarch Marketing Systems Inc. (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 1716, 1718 (Supreme Court of Victoria) and was similarly followed by the Commissioner of Patents in Application No. 494753 for a patent by Canadian Industries Ltd (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 40 and Application No. 486308 for a patent by Schlegel (U.K.) Ltd (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 592.
3 S.100(1)(e) of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth) states: “A standard patent may be revoked ... , on one or more of the following grounds, but on no other ground: ... that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim ... , was obvious and did not involve an inventive step having regard to what was known or used in Australia on or before the priority date of that claim;”. Minnesota was followed by the High Court in revocation proceedings in The W ellcome Foundation Ltd v. V.R. Laboratories (Aust.) Pty Ltd (1981) 55 A.L.J.R. 249, 251 per Aickin I. in whose judgment Gibbs A-CJ., Stephen, Mason and Wilson JI. concurred.
4 So found on the evidence by Aickin J., (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 297-298; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 270.
5 Claims 7, 8 and 9 read as follows: Claim 7, “A breathable translucent pressure-sensitive adhesive tape adapted for use as surgical tape, and comprising a translucent nonwoven inextensible porous backing form [sic] of interlaced staple textile fibers unified by a water-insoluble rubbery fiber-binding sizing agent, carrying an interlocking visibly continuous adhesive coating having a microporous structure adequate to permit perspiration transpiration when applied to the human skin and being of a nature that is relatively non irritating to the human skin as hereinbefore defined, said adhesive coating consisting of a water-insoluble hydrophobic viscoelastic pressure-sensitive adhesive polymer.”
Claim 8, “An adhesive tape according to claim 7 wherein said adhesive coating consists solely of a water-insoluble viscoelastic pressure-sensitive acrylate polymer.” Claim 9, “A breathable translucent pressure-sensitive adhesive surgical tape consisting of a thin inextensivly [sic] nonwoven translucent. porous backing formed of a compacted tissue of interlaced staple textile fibers unified by a nontacky hydrophobic rubbery acrylate poly,er [sic] sizing, carrying a partially penetrating thin transparent hydrophobic pressure-sensitive adhesive coating of a nature that is relatively non irritating to the human skin as hereinbefore defined, said adhesive coating consisting solely of an aggressively-tacky hydrophobic viscoelastic pressure-sensitive acrylate polymer the adhesive coating being visibly continuous but having a microporous structure such as to permit perspiration transpiration when the tape is applied to the human skin; said adhesive tape having a thickness not exceeding 150 microns and being highly translucent such as to permit the reacing [sic] therethrough of printed matter when the tape is adhered to a printed surface.”: (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 265-266; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 257.
6 18 April 1960.
7 S. 100(1) (g) of the Patents Act provides, “A standard patent may be revoked ... on one or more of the following grounds, but on no other ground: . . . that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim . . ., not novel in Australia on the priority date of that claim;”.
8 This means that the adhesive interlocks with and partially penetrates the backing of the tape.
9 Palmer v. Dunlop Perdriau Rubber Co. Ltd (1937) 59 C.L.R. 30, 62 per Latham C.J., 64 per Rich J. approving comments of Lord Tomlin in British Celanese, Ld v. Courtaulds, Ld (1935) 52 R.P.C. 171, 193.
10 Olin Corporation v. Super Cartridge Co. Pty Ltd (1977) 51 A.L.J.R. 525, 530 per Gibbs J. citing Rodi and Wienenberger A.G. v. Henry Showell Ltd [1969] R.P.C. 367, 391 per Lord Upjohn.
11 15 March 1978, Unreported High Court Judgment, p. 20.
12 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 259; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 254-255.
13 Id. 215; 261.
14 Stephen, Mason and Wilson JJ.
15 0. 38 r. 2 provides: “In a case which is to be tried or heard without a jury and which involves a question for an expert witness, the Court or a Justice may in its or his discretion at any time on the application of a party, appoint an independent expert to inquire into and report upon a question of fact or of opinion not involving questions of law or construction”.
16 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253,275; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 261.
17 The last three propositions were all acknowledged by Murphy J., Unreported High Court Judgment, pp. 15-17.
18 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 274; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 260 per Aickin J. citing British Thomson-Houston Company Ld v. Corona Lamp Works Ld (1922) 39 R.P.C. 49 and Monsanto Co. v. Commissioner of Patents (1974) 48 A.L.J.R. 59, 60 per Stephen J.
19 Id. 269-270; 259 per Aickin J. citing Non-Drip Measure Co. Ld v. Strangers, Ld. (1942) 59 R.P.C. 1, Badische Anilin und Soda Fabrik v. Levinstein (1883) 24 Ch.D. 156 and Mellin v. Monico (1877) 3 C.P.D. 142. These cases interpret substantially identical United Kingdom Rules of Court.
20 Id. 259; 254-255 per Barwick C.J., “As appears from my brother's reasons, our brother Murphy in deciding whether the respondent's tape, Leukopor, was relevantly inextensible, seems to have looked for an absolute whereas the claims of the patent in question stipulated, in my opinion, only for a relative.”
21 Unreported High Court Judgment, p. 15.
22 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 271-273; S4 A.L.J.R. 254, 2S9-260 per Aickin J.
23 Id. 280; 263.
24 Id. 283-284; 264.
25 Claim 9 is set out at n. 5 supra.
26 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 285-286; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 265.
27 Id. 286; 265 per Aickin J.
28 Ibid. citing Olin Corporation v. Super Cartridge Co. Pty Ltd (1977) 51 A.L.J.R. 525, 530 per Gibbs J.
29 (1875) L.R. 10 Ch. App. 667. See also Marconi v. British Radio Telegraph and Telephone Company Ld (1911) 28 R.P.C. 181,218 per Parker J.; R.C.A. Photophone, Ld v. Gaumont-British Picture Corporation, Ld (1936) 53 R.P.C. 167, 197 per Romer L.J.; C. Van Der Lely N.V. v. Bamfords Ltd [1963) R.P.C. 61.
30 Brochhausen, , “The Scope of Patent Protection in Different European Countries-An Outline of Recent Caselaw” (1973) 4 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 306, 313.Google Scholar
31 Cole, , “Patent Infringement 'Pith and Marrow' A Review of United Kingdom Practice” [1980) European Intellectual Property Review 289Google Scholar citing C. Van Der Lely N.V. v. Bamfords Ltd [1963] R.P.C. 61, Rodi and Wienenberger A.G. v. Henry Showell Ltd [1969] R.P.C. 367 .and 9Catnic Components Ltd v. Hill & Smith Ltd [1979] F.S.R. 619.
32 C. Van Der Lely N.V. v. Bamfords Ltd [1963] R.P.C. 61, 75-76 per Lord Reid.
33 Electric and Musical Industries Ld v. Lissen Ld (1939) 56 R.P.C. 23, 39 per Lord Russell.
34 See also Olin Corporation v. Super Cartridge Co. Pty Ltd (1977) 51 A.L.J.R. 525, 530 per Gibbs J.
35 Murphy J. dismissed the infringement proceedings and, because it then became unnecessary for him to consider revocation, the Full Court was left at large on this issue.
36 Benmax v. .Austin Motor Coy. Ld (1953) 70 R.P.C. 284, 288 per Lord Evershed M.R.; Johns-Manville Corporation's Patent [1967] R.P.C. 479, 493 per Diplock L.J. These two cases concerned the interpretation of equivalent English provisions.
37 Darcy v. Allin (1602) Noy 173; 74 E.R. 1131; Davies, , “Further Light on the Case of Monopolies” (1932) 48 L.Q.R. 394Google Scholar; Fox, Monopolies and Patents (1947), 57.
38 Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of .Australia v. Adelaide Steamship Company, Lmited [1913] A.C. 781, 794 per Lord Parker.
39 Harmar v. Playne (1809) 11 East 101; 103 E.R. 943.
40 Earl of Devonshire's Case, 11 Co. Rep. 89a; 77 E.R. 1266.
41 For example, Harwood v. Great Northern Ry Co. (1864) 11 H.L.C. 654, 682-683; 11 E.R. 1488, 1499 per Lord Westbury L.C.
42 Vickers, Sons and Co. Ltd v. Siddell (1890) 15 App. Cas. 496, 501-502 per Lord Herschell. In practice it is difficult to separate the concepts completely for they dovetail together: Gum v. Stevens (1923) 33 C.L.R. 267, 272 per Starke J.
43 (1623) 21 Jae. 1, c. 3.
44 This remains the central criterion for patentability in Australia by virtue of s. 35(1) (a) of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth) which provides: “An application for a patent . . . shall be in respect of a manner of new manufacture the subject of letters patent and grant of privilege within section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies;”.
45 See s. lOO(l)(g) of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth) reproduced at n. 7 supra.
46 Allmanna Svenska Elektriska A/B v. The Burntisland Shipbuilding Coy Ld (1952) 69 R.P.C. 63, 70 per Jenkins L.J.; 35 Halsbury's Laws of England (4th ed. 1981), para. 493; Pagenberg, , “The Evaluation of the 'Inventive Step' in the European Patent System-More Objective Standards Needed, Part One” (1978) 9 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 1, 15-16.Google Scholar
47 (1957) 98 C.L.R. 424, 437-438 (hereafter referred to as “H.P.M.”).
48 His Honour purported to rely upon Allmanna Svenska Elektriska A/B v. The Burntisland Shipbuilding Coy Ld (1952) 69 R.P.C. 63, 68-70 per Jenkins L.J. and observations of the House of Lords in Martin and Biro Swan Ld v. H. Millwood Ld [1956] R.P.C. 125, 133 per Viscount Simonds.
49 (1957) 98 C.L.R. 424, 438.
50 Acme Bedstead Co. Ltd v. New/ands Brothers Ltd (1937) 58 C.L.R. 689, 707 per Dixon J.
51 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 289; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 266-267 per Aickin J. citing The Mullard Radio Valve Co., Ld v. Philco Radio and Television Corporation of Great Britain, Ld (1936) 53 R.P.C. 323, 339 per Lord Macmillan (incorrectly cited by Aickin J. as 329); Bristol-Myers Co. v. Beecham Group Ltd [1974] A.C. 646, 679 per Lord Diplock.
52 The novelty ground of revocation, found ins. 25(2)(e) was “that the invention is not new.” The obviousness ground, ins. 25(2)(f), was “that the invention is obvious and does not involve any inventive step having regard to what was known or used prior to the date of the patent.”
53 The novelty ground of revocation, ins. 32(e) was “that the invention, ... is not new having regard to what was known or used, before the priority date of the claim, in the United Kingdom.” The obviousness ground, in s. 32(f) was, “that the invention,... , is obvious and does not .involve any inventive step having regard to what was known or used, before the priority date of the claim, in the United Kingdom;”.
54 This was not made the subject of any comment by Williams J. in H.P.M. See (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 288; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 266 per Aickin J.
55 Before 1952 revocation was dealt with under s. 86(3) of the Patents Act 1903, (Cth) which provided that, “Every ground on which a patent might at common law be repealed by scire facias shall be available as a ground of revocation”. The 1952 Act dealt with the novelty ground of revocation ins. 100(1 )(g), reproduced at n. 7 supra.
56 (1957) 98 C.L.R. 529 (hereafter referred to as “Mcllwraith”).
57 Id. 530. Fullagar J. agreed with the judgment delivered by Dixon C.J.
58 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 288; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 266.
59 Graham Hart (1971) Pty Ltd v. oS.W. Hart and Co. Pty Ltd (1978) 141 C.L.R. 305, 329; 52 A.L.J.R. 279, 284 per Aickin J.; Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v. Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 C.L.R. 228, 236-237 per Aickin J.
60 Other courts have been similarly obliged. For example; Lucas Industries Ltd v. Chloride Batteries Australia Ltd (1978) 18 A.L.R. 579, Federal Court of Australia, Bowen C.J., Smithers and Nimmo JJ.
61 (1961) 35 A.L.J.R. 212, 217-219.
62 Id. 218.
63 Id. 219.
64 (1937) 58 C.L.R. 689; see supra pp. 350-351.
65 Universal Oil Products Co. v. Monsanto Co. (1972) 46 A.L.J.R. 658; Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v. Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 C.L.R. 228; Graham Hart (1971) Pty Ltd v. S.W. Hart and Co. Pty Ltd (1978) 141 C.L.R. 305.
66 (1979) 144 .C.L.R. 253, 260 per Barwick C.J., 292 per Aickin J. (54 A.L.J.R. 254,255, 267-268).
67 Id. 260; 255.
68 (1850) 52 U.S. 261.
69 Id. 279 per Nelson J. delivering the opinion of the Court.
70 Riesenfeld, , “The New United States Patent Act in the Light of Comparative Law I” (1954) 102 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 291, 306-309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71 Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966) 383 U.S. 1, 14-15 per Clark J. delivering the opinion of the Court; Pagenberg, , “The Concept of the 'Inventive Step' in the European Patent Convention” (1974) 5 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 157, 165Google Scholar at n. 52 collecting the authorities.
72 Recognised in Jungersen v. Ostby & Barton Co. (1949) 335 U.S. 560, 572 per Jackson I. ( in dissent).
73 Enunciated in Cuno Engineering Corp. v. Automatic Devices Corp. (1941) 314 U.S. 84, 91 per Douglas J.; ''This rhetorical flourish had the effect of a spark in a power keg and the professional literature became swamped with expressions of protest and anxiety.” Riesenfeld, op. cit. 307, citing articles in support at n. 100.
74 Mast, Foos & Co. v. Stover Manufacturing Company (1900) 177 U.S. 485.
75 Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966) 383 U.S. 1, 19 per Clark J.
76 In re Winslow (1966) 151 U.S.P.Q. 48, 51 per Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
77 (1966) 362 F.2d 56.
78 (1966) 362 F.2d 56, 60 at n. 3 per Browning C.J. citing Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966) 383 U.S. 1 and Griffith Rubber Mills v. Hoffar (1963) 313 F.2d 1.
79 Shapiro, , “Toward a Realistic Standard of Patentability” (1975) 16/2 Idea 3, 8.Google Scholar
80 Id. 9. Acknowledged by Aickin J. in Minnesota (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 294; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 268.
81 Graham v. John Deere Co. (1966) 383 U.S. 1, 7-10 per Clark J., cited by Shapiro, op. cit. 10-11.
82 Beier, , “The Significance of the Patent System for Technical, Economic and Social Progress” (1980) 11 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 563, 574.Google Scholar
83 Columbia Broadcasting System v. Zenith Radio Corp. (1975) 185 U.S.P.Q. 662; Application of Antle (1971) 444 F.2d 1168; Pagenberg, , “The Evaluation of the 'Inventive Step' in the European Patent System-More Objective Standards Needed, Part One” (1978) 9 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 1, 18.Google Scholar
84 Pagenberg, , “The Concept of the 'Inventive Step' in the European Patent Convention” (1974) 5 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 157, 166.Google Scholar
85 Prior rights are documents within the meaning of Article 54 (3) not published at the filing date of the application but nonetheless bearing an earlier date. Hence the prior art available to assess obviousness is slightly more restricted than for a corresponding assessment in respect of novelty: Casalonga, , “The Concept of Inventive Step in the European Patent Convention” (1979) 10 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 412, 417-418.Google Scholar
86 Benthem, Van and Wallace, , “The Problem of Assessing Inventive Step in the European Patent Procedure” (1978) 9 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 297, 300.Google Scholar
87 Pagenberg, , “The Evaluation of the 'Inventive Step' in the European Patent System-More Objective Standards Needed, Part One” (1978) 9 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 1, 17-18Google Scholar, collecting the authority in support at nn. 64 and 65.
88 S. 4(1) of the Patent Act 1981 (Germany); Pakuscher, , “Examination for Non-obviousness-A Response.” (1981) 12 International Review of Industrial Property and Copyright Law 816, 816.Google Scholar
89 S. 3 of the Patents Act 1977 (U.K.}; see also Cornish, Intellectual Property:. Patents, Copyright, Trade Marks and Allied Rights, (1981) 152.
90 Set out at supra p, 351 n. 53.
91 Allmanna Svenska Elektriska AIB v. The Burntisland Shipbuilding Coy Ld (1952) 69 R.P.C. 63, 68-70 per Jenkins L.J.; Minnesota (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 289;54 A.L.J.R. 254, 266 per Aickin J. Unanimity does not exist on this point although for practical purposes it is settled. Lord Morton in Martin and Biro Swan Ld v. H. Millwood Ld [1956] R.P.C. 125, 138 did not consider a change in the law to have been effected; see also, Gratwick, , “Having Regard to What was Known and Used” (1972) 88 L.Q.R. 341, 342.Google Scholar
92 Gratwick, op. cit., 341; for example, Woven Plastic Products Ltd v. British Ropes Ltd [1970] F.S.R. 47 discussed infra, and Fomento Industrial S.A., Biro Swan Ld and Another v. Mentmore Manufacturing Coy, Ld [1956] R.P.C. 87.
93 [1969] R.P.C. 395, 408.
94 The Full Court in Minnesota was not so bound.
95 [1970] F.S.R. 47 (hereafter referred to as “Woven Plastic”).
96 Id. 50 echoing comments made by Windeyer J. in Sunbeam Corporation v.Morphy-Richards (Australia) Pty Ltd (1961) 35 A.L.J.R. 212, 218, see supra p. 352.
97 Id. 58. “In the new world of supra-national {'atenting ... the notional technician presumably has acquired, at least passively, the gift of tongues”: Cornish, op. cit. 161.
98 Gratwick, op. cit. cited by Aickin J. in Minnesota (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 290; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 267.
99 White, Blanco, “Known or Used” (1973) 89 L.Q.R. 16, 17Google Scholar.
1 British Acoustic Films Ld, Arnold Poulsen and Alex Karl Georg Petersen v. Nettle/old Productions (1936) 53 R.P.C. 221, 250 per Luxmoore J., quoted with approval per curiam in General Tire & Rubber Co. Ltd v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd [1971] F.S.R. 417, 440. In this context the requirement referred to includes by definition the requirement of publication, viz. that the document be made available to a member of the public free in law and equity to deal with as he or she wishes: Humpherson v. Syer (1887) 4 R.P.C. 407, 413-414 per Bowen L.J.; Fomento Industrial S.A., Biro Swan Ld and Another v. Mentmore Manufacturing Coy, Ld [1956] R.P.C. 87, 99 per Lord Evershed M.R.
2 General Tire and Rubber Co. Ltd v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd [1971] F.S.R. 417, 439 per curiam, relied upon in Application No. 486308 for a patent by Schlegel (U.K.) Ltd (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 592, 595 per Commissioner of Patents.
3 Expressly recognised by Aickin J. in Minnesota (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 294; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 268-269 citing Vidal Dyes Syndicate Ld v. Levinstein Ld (1912) 29 R.P.C. 245, 279-280 per Fletcher Moulton L.J., and British Celanese Ld v. Courtaulds Ld (1933) 50 R.P.C. 259,280 per Lawrence L.J.
4 S. 48(3) (e) states, “In respect of the complete specification, the Examiner . . . shall re{'ort whether, to the best of his knowledge, the invention, so far as claimed in any claim, was novel on the priority date of the claim and, if he reports that the invention was not novel on that date, shall specify the reasons for that report”.
5 S. 35(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth); seen. 44 supra.
6 [1942] A.O.J.P. 739, 740 per Dixon J., : “Where variations from a device previously published consist in matters which make no substantial contribution to the working of the thing or involve no ingenuity or inventive step and the merit if any of the two things, considered as inventions, is the same, it is, I think, impossible to treat the differences as giving novelty”. This decision was noted at (1938) 12 A.L.J. 169Google Scholar. See also The Linotype Co. Ltd (In Liquidation) v. Mounsey (1909) 9 C.L.R. 194; McGlashan v. Rabett (1909) 9 C.L.R. 223; Gum v. Stevens (1923) 33 C.L.R. 267.
7 This proposition is implicit in the reasoning of the High Court in Commissioner of Patents v. Microcell Ltd (1959) 102 C.L.R. 232. It is acted on as a matter of practice by the Commissioner of Patents; for example, Application No. 439027 for a patent by Dennison Manufacturing Co. (1980) 50 A.O.J.P. 2856, 2858; Application No. 456401 for a patent by Hilti Aktiengesellschaft (1979) 49 A.O.J.P. 190, 192 and Application No. 486308 for a patent by Schlegel (U.K.) Ltd (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 592, 594.
8 S. 58 of the Patents Act 1952 (Cth) provides, “The investigation and reports referred to in this Act do not in any way guarantee the validity of a patent and the Commonwealth, the Commissioner, or an officer or person employed in the Patent Office, is not liable, by reason of, or in connexion with, any such investigation or report or any proceedings consequent on any such investigation or report.”
9 Discussed in Swift & Co.'s Application [1962] R.P.C. 37.
10 McDonald v. Commissioner of Patents (1913) 15 C.L.R. 713; Sir W.G. Armstrong Whitworth and Co. (Engineers) Ltd v. Commissioner of Patents [1936] A.L.R. 131.
11 (1959) 102 C.L.R. 232 (hereafter referred to as “Microcell”).
12 Id. 245 per curiam. See Application No. 21435177 for a patent by Carrier Corp. (1980) 50 A.O.J.P. 3332, 3333 per Commissioner of Patents.
13 Raised by Blanco White, op. cit. 17.
14 See Supra p; 356.
15 (1981) 51 A.O.J.P; 40.
16 Id. 46 per Commissioner of Patents applying Minnesota.
17 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 295; 54 A.L.J.R. 254,269 per Aickin J.
18 Id. 292; 268.
19 Id. 293; 268.
20 Ibid. See also The Wellcome Foundation Ltd V. R. Laboratories (Aust.) Pty Ltd (1981) 55 A.L.J.R. 249, 251 per Aickin J.; Dennison Manufacturing Co. v. Monarch Marketing Systems Inc. (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 1716, 1718, per Fullagar J.; Application No. 494753 for a patent by Canadian Industries Ltd (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 40, 46 per Commissioner of Patents and Application No. 486308 for a patent by Schlegel (U.K.) Ltd (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 592, 595 per Commissioner of Patents.
21 (1978) 141 C.L.R. 305.
22 Id. 332, citing Commonwealth Industrial Gases Ltd v. M.W.A. Holdings Pty Ltd (1970) 44 A.L.J.R. 385.
23 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 294; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 268 per Aickin J., citing British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company Ld v. Braulik (1910) 27 R.P.C. 209, 230 per Fletcher Moulton L.J.; Palmer v. Dunlop Perdriau Rubber Co. Ltd (1937) 59 C.L.R. 30, 60-61 per Latham C.J.
24 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 293; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 268.
25 See supra p. 350.
26 Van Benthem and Wallace, op. cit. 301-302; Technograph Printed Circuits Ltd v. Mills & Rockley (Electronics) Ltd [1972] R.P.C. 346, 355 per Lord Reid In re Kratz and Strasberger (1979) 201 U.S.P.Q. 71.
27 (1979) 201 U.S.P.Q. 71, Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
28 Application of Antonie (1977) 559 F.2d 618.
29 Followed on this point by Ex parte Engelhardt (1980) 208 U.S.P.Q. 343, 351 per Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals.
30 Application of Bode (1977) 550 F.2d 656, Application of Wiggins (1973) 488 F.2d 538.
31 The respondent adduced no evidence as to the content of common general knowledge whatsoever.
32 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 297-298; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 270.
33 Contrast the debate now ensuing over the probative value to be accorded circum-stantial indicia of invention under Article 56 of the European Patent Convention and s. 4(1) of the Patent Act 1981 (Germany). See articles by Pagenberg, Pakuscher, Casalonga and van Benthem and Wallace supra nn. 84-88. The High Court continues to deal with this issue on an ad hoc basis: see for example The Wellcome Foundation Ltd v. V.R. Laboratories (Aust.) Pty Ltd (1981) 55 A.L.J.R. 249.
34 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 298; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 270.
35 “The basic test for anticipation or want of novelty is the same as that for infringement and generally one can properly ask oneself whether the alleged anticipation would, if the patent were valid, constitute an infringement”. Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v. Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 C.L.R. 228, 235 per Aickin J.
36 See for example: Application No. 506064 for a patent by Dorf Industries Pty Ltd (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 1832, Application No. 486308 for a patent by Schlegel (U.K.) Ltd (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 592, Application No. 456301 for a patent by Hi/ti Aktiengesellschaft (1979) 49 A.O.J.P. 190.
37 (1979) 144 C.L.R. 253, 260; 54 A.L.J.R. 254, 2S5 per Barwick C.J.
38 Application No. 494753 for a patent by Canadian Industries Ltd (1981) 51 A.O.J.P. 40.