LEITHISER et al. v. PENGO HYDRA-PULL OF CANADA LTD.
17 C.P.R. (2d) 110
Affirming 12 C.P.R. (2d) 117
Federal Court of Appeal
Jackett, C.J., Thurlow, J., and Mackay, D.J.
November 22, 1974
In this case in my view, the specification did not comply in any substantial sense with s. 36(1). The first part of the specification 6 (down to the paragraph beginning “In the accompanying drawings …”) talks about the purposes and objects of the “invention” and says what it “relates to” but. Once the “specification” starts to refer to the drawings, it does nothing but explain the particular machine that those drawings represent and it makes it very clear that they, “for the purpose of illustration”, show “only a preferred embodiment of the invention” which I take to be patent jargon for saying that they are a fulfillment of the requirement that the applicant explain “the best mode” in which he contemplates the principle of the machine “being applied”.
[17 C.P.R. (2d) p. 115]
does not describe it, much less set forth how to construct it, explain its “principle” or indicate or claim the “part, improvement or combination” claimed to be the inventor’s invention