CA: Rappel de pourquoi en pratique canadienne, il faut le support du texte des revendications dans le sommaire de l’invention

Ce principe trouve sa source dans une décision de 1974:

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

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: