IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY P.

201 Vol. XLI.] REPORTS OF PATENT, DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [No.6 In the Matter of an AppUcation for a Patent by P. Februa.ry 6th, 1924. IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY P. Application for grant of Patent.--;Manner of new manufacture.-Appl ication 5 refttscd.-Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 and 1919, Section 93. On the 22nd of April, 1922, an Applicat.ion was made by P. for a Patent in respect of an invention ent,itlOO, " Improvements in or relating to apparatus for copying documents, drawings, or the like. '' The invention was concerned with sheet's printed or Q!ih!i..'DY!.~ __:rna:rked for use as copies in reflex drawing 10 apparatus, such as that described 1n S:pe·CffiC-atiori"200;929. · ··---~-·- · ~----- ------· Objection was raised by the Examiner that the invention did not constitute a. manner of new manufacture within the meaning of Section 93 of the Patents and De.sign.s Acts, 1907 and 1919. The Assistant-Comptroll er of Patents (act,ing for the Comptroller-General) 15 refused the Application, on the ground that the only material product was a printed bhee.t or it.s equivalent, and the only alleged invention was an ar'l"angement of signs or symbols on the sheetH so as to be laterally reversed. The Applicant· appealed and was herurd before th6 SoLICITOR-GENERAL on the 6th of Februa.ry, 1924. The A.~sistant-Comptroller of Patents appeared in support of his decision. 20 Cooper's Application (· (1902) 19 R.P.C. 53) and C.'s Application ( (1920) 37 R.P.C. 247) were refer'l"ed to. Sir HENRY SLESSER S.G.-In this case a claim is made for producing printed sheets to be used with a reflex copying apparatus, the essence of the claim 25 being tha,t the writing is, printed backwards on a piece of paper, and, on being used in the apparatus, acts as a guidance to persons learning to write and draw. It is quite clear to my mind that ~l«;JlEZ :b..!?!"§_if;~~-awL.tl:u&.t~~~ particular article_ ?f~lgl~~!@re_~§... !!lvo"!_y.~-~ I do not think it can beJaid than f.h1s pniite'ctmat~. i~_~ec~i.!l.@:i§.J!'!«LflQI!ll:ruL.~.tmL~; it 30 appears to metobe of a general character. What is sought to be patented here is no more than printed matter o£ a peculiar kind. The Applicant, who appeared in person and fhl'gued his case very cleady, has suggested that the purpose of the printed matter would be confined to \lser with his a;pparatus or Before THE SoLICITOR-GENERAL. 202.: No.6] REPORTS OF PATENT,DESIGN, AND TRADE MARK CASES [Vol. XLI. In the Ma,tter of an lip'plication for a Patent. by P. , IN THE HIGH COURT Oli' JUSTICE-JCHANCERY DIVISION. Before MR. JUSTICE SARGANT. May 8th, 1923, IN 10 THE ~,fATTER OF I~EVICK'S PATENT. by Originating Sumrnone for an extension. of the term of the Patent.-Loss due to hostilities.-Patent ha.ving .cxpired.-Fo1tr yeaT's' extension gra.nted.-Patents and Designs Acts, 1907 and 1919, Section 18, Sub-seciion. (6). 15 Pai;~nt.-Application Letters .Patent (No. 2969 of 1907), dated the 6th of February, 1907, were granted to John, Leoick in respect, of an invention of ., Improvements in or .• relating to <Folding Lavatories. ,. On the 2nd of February, 1923, John Levick the .younger (the legal personal representative of the Grantee) and. John Leoick Ld, applied by Originating Summons (amended the 9th of March, 20 1923) for an extension of the term of the Patent. On the 5th of February, 1923, the Patent expired. An affidavit in support of the Application was made by the Applicant John Leoick, who deposed (inter alia) tha~ the Grantee had, up tBI tho time of his with similar instruments. There appear to he a numb-er of such instruments, which makes me doubt, whether the reverse printing could properly be said to be ancillary to any particular apparatus, but, apart altogether from this fact" I can see no limitation to any apparatus in which the printed sheets are to be used in the Claim. 5 , For these reasons I think that the Assistant-Oomptrolle1'" was right in refusing to accept the Application, and the appeal will, therefore, be dismissed. .  (...truncated)