Broadbent v Davies [1916] HCA 22

Broadbent v Davies [1916] HCA 22

The High Court found that the applicants' invention involved both novelty and inventive step, as the method of gripping a thin sheet of soft metal in a groove running around a hard metal spindle passing through it was not the same in substance as the respondent's method. The applicants' method was not previously used for this purpose and was not anticipated. Furthermore, the ambiguity in claim 5 could be resolved by a verbal amendment, which the Court had the authority to require as a condition of acceptance of the patent under section 47 of the Patents Act.

Parties
Appellant: Ernest Edgar Broadbent; Appellant: Henry Parks; Respondent: Edgar Naunton Davies
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 1916
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Commissioner of Patents to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Patent to be granted conditionally upon amendment.
Legal Topics
Patentability, Novelty, Specification Amendment, Anticipation, Patent Application Procedure
Intellectual Property Patent Law Patentability Novelty Specification Amendment Anticipation Patent Application Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ernest Edgar Broadbent

Appellant

Henry Parks

Appellant

Edgar Naunton Davies

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Commissioner of Patents to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants' method of attaching the turbine to the spindle is novel and not anticipated by the respondent's patent
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' specification, specifically claim 5, is wanting in subject matter or can be accepted with amendment under section 47 of the Patents Act 1903-1909

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court found that the applicants' invention involved both novelty and inventive step, as the method of gripping a thin sheet of soft metal in a groove running around a hard metal spindle passing through it was not the same in substance as the respondent's method. The applicants' method was not previously used for this purpose and was not anticipated. Furthermore, the ambiguity in claim 5 could be resolved by a verbal amendment, which the Court had the authority to require as a condition of acceptance of the patent under section 47 of the Patents Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Patent to be granted conditionally upon amendment.

Orders

  • Patent to be granted conditionally upon the amendment of claim 5 by inserting the word 'having' before the words 'the internal edge'.
  • Respondent to pay costs of appeal and £10 10s. for costs before Commissioner.