COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
REISSUE: Control Ticket
The original patent claimed a multi section ticket having an aperature
within the confines of the magnetic part of the ticket. In the reissue
the applicant claims the aperature adjacent the magnetic part of the
ticket.
Final Action: Affirmed
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated January 24, 1975, on application
193,998 (Class 235-83). The application way filed on March 4, 1974, in
the name of Burton R. Marmer et al, and is entitled "Control Ticket."
The Patent Appeal Board conducted a Hearing on March 24, at which the
applicant was represented, and ably represented, by Mr. G. Kersey
his United States patent attorney, and by Mr. R. Barrigar.
What we are concerned with is an application to reissue patent 905906 of
July 25, 1972. The invention is a paper card bearing inventory information
used in stores and warehouses to maintain records relating to sales,
supplies, and re-ordering of stocks. The card (or "control ticket") is
made in two parts detachable one from the other. It is normally affixed
to an article being handled, say a dress. when the dress is sold, part of
the ticket may be removed and used by the storekeeper for updating his records
The tickets have magnetizable areas on which information may be recorded,
and there are apertures in the tickets by which recording heads may be
positioned to record and read information on the magnetic areas.
The examiner refused the application to reissue for failing to meet the
requirements imposed by Section 50 of the Patent Act. He has said that:
(1) The original patent is not defective since its claims fairly
represent applicant's entitlement in view of prior art;
(2) At the time of the original application, there was no intention to
claim slots between parts of the ticket as having recording
positioning functions;
(3) There was no error on the part of the Canadian agent,
as had been suggested by the applicant;
(4) The new facts stated in the petition are not of a substantive
nature (that is they are not significant enough to warrant
reissue);
(5) The reissue claims define different subject matter than that
originally claimed, and are subject to rejection under Rule 25
of the Rules and Section 36(2) of the Act;
(6) Reissue claims 1, 3 and 10 are broader than originally filed
claims 1 to 3, which had been cancelled during prosecution as
a result of applied art. These claims are also much broader
than patented claims, which were rejected on prior art but
subsequently allowed in view of strong argument by applicant.
In the petition for reissue the applicant has declared:
(1) THAT Your Petitioner is the patentee of Canadian Patent No.
905,906 granted on the 25th day of July, 1972 for an invention
entitled CONTROL TICKET.
(2) THAT the said patent is deemed defective or inoperative by
reason of the patentee having claimed less than he had a right
to claim as new.
(3) THAT the respects in which the patent is deemed defective or
inoperative are as follows:
The invention has been unduly narrowly claimed in
Canadian Patent No. 905,906. The invention is con-
sidered to be properly claimed in claims 1 to 12 of
the revised specification accompanying this petition.
Specifically, Canadian Patent No. 905,906 discloses a control
ticket with a magnetic coating, wherein the ticket can be multi-
sectioned or multi-part. Referring to Figure 1B, it is apparent
that the apertures 22 are surrounded by magnetizable material,
but it is also apparent that there is an additional aperture
in the ticket namely that which extends between the land
areas of joining ticket parts 10-1 and 10-2. The coating 21
only partially surrounds this latter aperture. However,
claim 1 in the granted patent states that the aperture in the
magnetizable material is "continuously surrounded thereby".
This would be true of apertures 22 but not of the other apertures.
It was at all times the intention of the inventors to obtain
coverage on a ticket of the kind shown in Figure 1b. However,
there was a failure on the part of the attorney prosecuting the
Canadian patent application to realize that the Figure 1b
embodiment contained two different kinds of apertures, and the un-
necessary restriction "continuously surrounded thereby" was
introduced without taking due cognizance of the total structure
shown in Figure 1b.
(4) THAT the error arose from inadvertence, accident or mistake,
without any fraudulent or deceptive intention in the following
manner:
The prosecution of the United States and Canadian patent applica-
tions was handled by different attorneys from different firms.
The error on the part of the attorney handling the Canadian case has
been detailed in paragraph 3 supra. The Canadian application was
the first to issue to patent. The United States counterpart issued
on 10 April 1973 under No. 3,727,031. Following the issue of the
United States patent, a review of counterpart foreign applications
and patents was made in the light of the United States prosecution,
in view of the fact inter alia that the cases have not been handled
by the same attorney. After extended consideration of the
difference between the Canadian and the United States applications,
the patentee decided to take the necessary steps to make any desired
corrections in Canada. A letter was transmitted to your petitioner's
Canadian associates on 25 October 1973 and since that date
correspondence has been exchanged between your petitioner and your
petitioner's Canadian associate with a view to preparation of the
present petition.
In his response to the Final Rejection dated July 24, 1976, the applicant
stated (in part):
In particular, the U.S. claims are directed to a multi-part ticket
where the aperture is located between ticket parts and separates
adjoining magnetic regions. This aperture prevents delamination
of the magnetic portions of the ticket and also serves to reduce
the kind of abrasive wear that would occur if a slitting knife for
example were used during the preparation of the tickets or in
severing a set of multi-part tickets from the rest of the supply
during operation of the machine. Thus the U.S, claims are concerned
with the aperture between ticket sections as contrasted with the
aperture in a single ticket section.
On the other hand, the embodiment covered by the Canadian claims
in the granted patent all depend on the use of a centrally
positioned aperture within a magnetic coated portion of the ticket
to facilitate the proper positioning of a recording instrumentality
with respect to the magnetic surface. The multi-part aspect of
the ticket structure is included only by way of certain dependent
claims in the Canadian patent. Thus these latter claims are
unnecessarily restricted to a ticket structure of the kind set forth
in the independent main claim.
The Canadian claims are unduly restricted in view of the art.
The claims state that the aperture is continuously surrounded by a
coating. This limitation is not necessary to distinguish over the
art. If, for example, the art is distinguished on the basis that the
aperture is for positioning of a magnetic recording head with
respect to magnetic material surrounding the aperture, there is no
reason in that case why the aperture would have to be continuously
surrounded.
...
The Examiner appears to be substituting his own set of facts for
the set of facts presented to the Patent Office. It is not possible
for the Examiner to know what the "intention" was since it was
not the Examiner who formed the intention of the applicant or
the inventors. The petition for reissue states clearly "It was
at all times the intention of the inventors to obtain coverage
on a ticket of the kind shown in Figure 1b". This is a state-
ment of fact which is not open to the Examiner to challenge.
In further support of the applicant's position with respect to
this matter, please have regard to the enclosed Affidavits of
the two inventors, Burton R. Marmer and Richard F. Stucchi.
...
The petition for reissue clearly says that "There was a failure on
the part of the attorney prosecuting the Canadian patent application
to realize the Figure 1b embodiment contained two different kinds
of apertures...". It is not permissible for the Examiner on a
statement of fact to contradict the applicant's actual statements.
The petition presented must be considered on its merits. The
Examiner is not entitled to substitute his own judgement for the
erroneous judgement that was in fact made. In further support of the
applicant's position, attached is the Affidavit of George E. Kersey,
which indicates further facts concerning the background of the
U.S. and Canadian prosecution.
...
In response, the applicant points out that this is at the heart
of the present reissue application. It is precisely because the
U.S. claims are directed to a multi-part ticket in which the aperture
is located between ticket parts and separates adjoining magnetic
regions, which aperture presents the lamination of the magnetic
portions of the ticket and also serves to reduce the kind of abrasive
wear that would occur if a slitting knife for example were used
during the preparation of the tickets or in severing a set of multi-
part tickets from the rest of the supply during operation of the
machine, that the present reissue application is being presented.
The embodiments covered by the Canadian patent clams all depend
upon the use of a centrally positioned aperture within a magnetic
coated portion of the ticket to facilitate the proper positioning
of a recording instrumentality with respect to the magnetic surface.
This failure to distinguish the two aspects of the invention is a
significant reason for presenting the present reissue petition.
...
The applicant challenges the validity of the "Rule" presented by
the Examiner. Such a rule is completely out of accord with the
holding of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Burton Parsons case
above, to the effect that "it is a basic rule in the exercise of
judicial discretion in such matters that a party should not suffer
a deprivation of his rights due to the error or neglect of his
attorney". If the Canadian agent, as is apparent from the facts
presented here, made a mistake, the applicant is entitled to correct
it. That is one of the functions of reissue, as apparent from the
holding in the Burton Parsons case.
For a clearer understanding of the invention we reproduce Figures 1A and 1B,
which show the control ticket.
(See Figures A and B)
We believe, unfortunately, that some confusion and ambiguity has arisen
because of an impreciseness and inconsistency in terms utilized to describe
the invention, and because the applicant is attempting to cover several
different aspects of the invention and alternatives in a single claim.
For that reason we will restate what we understand to be the principle parts
of the invention, employing the terms that we will subsequently utilize.
The control ticket is made up of one or more parts (10-1, 10-2).Where
there is more than one part they are separated by a slot (Y) which makes
it easier to separate the parts. Each part is made of three sections, a
header section(h)for recording visual information, a stub section (s)
coated with magnetizable material and a tab section (t) on which the
price of the article may be marked. The sections are separated by incisions
or perforations (13-a,13-b) so that they may be detached from each other or
folded over each other. In the stub is an aperture 22 for positioning
a recording head to read the information on the magnetic material. In
the header is a hole 14 alignable with aperture 22 when the header is folded over
incision line 13a to protect the magnetized layer. Hole 14 is primarily used
to attach the control ticket to merchandise.
In the original patent the claims all specify the presence of aperture 22.
Claim 16 also includes (in addition to aperture 22) the slot.
In the reissue application the patentee does not wish to be restricted to
a ticket containing aperture 22. He wishes to claim tickets which contain
any aperture whether that be aperture 22 or slot Y , or both of them.
To indicate some of the reasons for confusion and ambiguity we referred to
previously, we need only look to claim 1 of the application for reissue. In
it the applicant introduces the term " member" for what he called a "section"
in the patent. Then he equates a "section" with a "part." He next
refers to an aperture "adjacent" to the magnetizable material (presumably
being the slot), whereas the slot will not be present if there is only one
part to the ticket.
From the prosecution and what was said at the Hearing it is evident that
a key point of dispute is whether there was any accident, inadvertence or mistake
when the original patent was limited to control tickets containing aperture 22.
During that prosecution the examiner cited prior art showing control tickets
containing sections separable along perforated lines and carrying magnetizable
material. To clear that art the applicant amended broad claim 1 and stated
(letter of April 5, 1971, p. 3):
Claim 1 has been amended to clarify the way in which it
distinguishes over all the known prior art, including the refer-
ences cited by the Canadian Examiner and the references here-
after set forth cited during the prosecution of the corresponding
united States application.
In claim 1 as amended the control ticket is specified as being
elongated and having a second section, containing magnetizable
material, with a single aperture for positioning a recording
unit with respect to the magnetizable material which continuously
surrounds the aperture . None of the prior art discloses such a
control ticket. (emphasis added)
He also cancelled original claims 2, 3 and others which failed to include
aperture 22.
We believe that original claim 1 contained aperture 22, but in any event
the amendment "clarified" that this was so. Still, the examiner persisted
in his objection and the applicant replied on February 17, 1972 at p. 2:
As to the particular aperture recited in the claims, it is
for the positioning of a magnetic recording head (underlining
by applicant) with respect to magnetic material that surrounds
the aperture. It is to be emphasized that none of the
references shows an aperture in magnetic material (emphasis
added) for that purpose. In the case of reference Stoller, for
example, the aperture of the disk shown in Figure 4 is for
the spindle of a turn-table, not for receiving the spindle
of a recording head.
To clarify this matter, claim 2 has been amended to recite
that the single aperture contained in the second section of
Applicant's control ticket is for receiving a recording unit
with respect to magnetizable material. Claim 3 has been replaced
by a substitute claim which emphasizes that the aperture is to
receive the spindle of a circular recording head for the recording
of control information in a magnetic coating....
It is thus apparent that at the time of the original patent it was intended
that aperture 22 should be present, and this feature was relied upon to
clear the prior art. As was made clear at the Hearing, the examiner accepted
this distinction as being sufficient to avoid the reference, and allowed
the application. The particular advantage in having aperture 22 present is
indicated in the disclosure at page 7 line 30, at pane 8 lines 1-9 and 23
and at page 11 line 2.
At the Hearing the examiner relied upon a decision of the United States
courts, In re Beyers (1956) 43 CCPA 804 dealing with reissue. In doing so
he pointed out that the provisions for reissuing in Canada are derived from
the corresponding provisions in the United States Act. He also pointed to
what was said about reissue in Hunter v Carrick (1884), 10 O.A.R. 449 at
468 (affirmed 11 S.C.R. 300) where we find:
Cases may arise for adjudication in which it will be important
to keep in view the differences between the two statutes; but
as far as they touch the immediate subject before us, viz: the
effect of the reissue of a patent upon corrected specifications,
as they are styled in the United States statute, or amended or corrected
ones are they are indifferently styled in ours, we may for our
present purpose regard them as covering the same ground; and I agree
with the learned Judge, whose decision we are considering, that
we should treat the judgements in the United States Courts, in
which the effect of their statute has been declared, as laying
down the rule which we should follow....
We note, too, that in Curl-Master v Atlas Brush (1967) S.C.R. 514 at 527
& 530), Martland J, quoted with approval from two United States decisions
on reissue, while in Farbwerke Hoechst v Commissioner of Patents (1966 SCR
606 at 614) he pointed to the distinctions which must be made where there
are material differences in the provisions. See also Van Heusen v Tooke Bros.
1929 Ex. C.R. 89 at 100 and Leonard v. Commissioner of Patents, 14 Ex. C.R.351
(1914) at 361. Keeping in mind, then, such proper distinctions as should be
made, we turn to the Byers decision, supra, and find at p. 807:
Thus in Dobson v. Lees, 137 U.S. 258, the Supreme Court of the
United States said:
A reissue is an amendment, and cannot be allowed unless the
imperfections in the original patent arose without fraud, and
from inadvertence, accident or mistake. Hence the reissue cannot
be permitted to enlarge the claims of the original patent by
including matter once intentionally omitted. Acquiescence in the
rejection of a claim; its withdrawal by amendment, either to
save the application or to escape an interference; the acceptance of
a patent containing limitations imposed by the Patent Office, which
narrow the scope of the invention as it first described and
claimed; are instances of such omission.
Similarly in Shepard v. Corrigan, 116 U.S. 593, the Court said:
Where an applicant for a patent to cover a new combination is
compelled by the rejection of his application by the Patent
Office to narrow his claim by the introduction of a new element,
he cannot after the issue of the patent broaden his claim by
dropping the element which he was compelled to include in order
to secure his patent.
...
It is evident that since the deliberate cancellation of a claim in
order to obtain a patent constitutes a bar to the obtaining of the
same claim by reissue, it necessarily also constitutes a bar to the
obtaining of a claim which differs from that cancelled only in being
broader. That was the holding in In re White, 23 F. 2d 776, 57
App. D.C. 355, and in In re Murray, supra, this court quoted with
approval the following statement from Ex parte White 1928 C.D. 6:
The deliberate withdrawal of a claim in order to secure a patent
is conclusive of the presumption that there has been no inad-
vertence, accident, or mistake, and the invention thus abandoned
cannot be regained either by construing the claims of the patent
broadly or by obtaining a reissue with broadened claims. The rule
is the same whether the claims sought by reissue or otherwise
are identical, substantially the same, or broader than the
abandoned claims.
Similarly, in In re Wadsworth et al, 27 C.C.P.A. (Patents) 735,
107 F. 2d 596, 43 USPQ 460, it was held that the cancellation
of a claim from an original application on which a patent was
granted, reciting a process including two steps in a specified
order precluded the obtaining by reissue of the patent of a similar
claim which was broader than that cancelled in that it did not
specify the order in which the steps were performed.
We are of the opinion that the appellant's action in limiting the
scope of original claim 20 by amendment constituted a deliberate
withdrawal of that claim as originally presented, in order to
obtain a patent, and that such withdrawal is a bar to the obtaining
by reissue of claim 20 as it originally stood, or of any claim
differing therefrom only by being broader. Appealed claims 2 and 3,
as above noted, differ from original claim 20 as presented, only in
that they are broader than that claim. (Emphasis added)
We think it would also be appropriate to refer to In the Matter of Land's
Patent (1910) 27 R.P.C. 481 to show that a deliberate action cannot be
considered unintentional, even though that deliberate action was taken
because of an error in appreciating what the law might be. That case
involved the restoration of a lapsed parent, but we believe the reasoning
adopted there is appropriate in assessing whether a deliberate action can
be brought within the meaning of "inadvertence, accident or mistake" as used
in Section 50 of the Canadian Patent Act.
In this case we are satisfied that the applicant now proposes to enlarge his
claims by deleting limitations intentionally included to obtain a patent.
We are not satisfied that the necessary element of inadvertence, accident
or mistake is present to justify reissuance of the original patent.
An outline of the circumstances leading to the filing of the reissue application
is contained in an affidavit by Mr. Kersey, which was placed on file with the
response to the Final Action. One of the primary reasons for reissuing given
was the discovery that the United States coverage was substantially different
from that obtained in Canada. If we look at the corresponding U.S. Patent
No. 3727031, we find that there are some distinctions which should be noted.
1. The U.S, application is a continuation application of U.S.
application No. 681,730 (the convention application correspond-
ing to the original Canadian Patent 905,906). It does not
correspond exactly to the Canadian application, though apart
from the claims the disclosures are essentially the same.
2. The U.S. patent is not a reissued patent.
3. The claims are different. Those in the United States patent are
clearly directed to a different feature of the invention, i.e.
the use of the slot to separate parts by a knife without cutting
through the magnetized layers. There was no attempt to claim
control cards containing positioning aperature 22. Presumably
that feature was refused by the final rejection in the original
U.S. application which led to the U.S. continuation application
In considering what was intended by the applicant we should also consider
the nature and purpose of the invention disclosed both in the original
application and in copending applications filed at the same time. There
were three of them all filed by Dennison Manufacturing Company on Nov. 8,
1968. They bore the application serial numbers 034,777; 034,778; and 034,779,
and subsequently were issued as patents 905,905; 887,741; and 905,906 respect-
ively. It is the last of these for which a reissue is sought. Patents
905,905 and 905,906 are both entitled "Control ticket," and have identical
disclosures and drawings. Patent 887,741 is for a "Marking System", and relates
to equipment to use the ticket protected by the other two patents.
Patent 905,905 (which as noted has a disclosure and drawing identical to the
reissue application) claims an elongated ticket having "a further aperture
extending through said carrying means for receiving a recording head... said
further aperture being encircled by said coating without making contact
therewith."
Patent 905,906, which is requested for reissue claims an elongated control
multi-section ticket having the "second section containing a single aperture
therein and extending therethrough for positioning a recording unit with
respect to the magnetisable material and continuously surrounded thereby...."
Patent 887,741 is for a marking system comprising a marking machine unit,
an interface unit, and a controller unit. The ticket shown in the drawing
as 1A, 1B is identical to the ticket shown as 1A, 1B in the two patents.
On page 9 the first paragraph at line 12 reads: "In addition, the recording
unit itself desirably includes a locating pin, such as a spindle which
enters the aperture of the ticket. By virtue of the use of two locating
pins, while ticket tension is relieved, the position of the ticket at the re-
cording station is precisely fixed before recording takes place." At page 13
line 32 the disclosure reads, "The only apertures in the ticket structures 21
of Figs. 1A and 1B are centering holes 24 for positioning the ticket
with respect to the recording head and string holes 25 by which the ticket 21
can be attached to an item of merchandise, such as a garment." (emphasis added)
On page 25 at line 21 the disclosure further states "This creates a clamping
effect on the ticket 21 and assists the locating pin 276, as entered into
the string hole 25, in preventing inadvertent rotation of ticket 21. The
locating pin 276 is convexly tapered from its end to promote proper engage-
ment of the stringhole 25." Even when a linear recording unit is used as
outlined on page 26 of the disclosure the locating pin 276 is still required.
When we consider all three patents, the question which arises is "did the
inventors intend to claim a ticket having no aperture within the confines
of the header section, tab section or stub section?" The disclosure of the
patents reveal the manner in which the ticket is printed, recorded and used.
These patents clearly show that the use of an aperture within the confines
of the perimeter of the header section or stub section is necessary to
accomplish the objectives of the invention. We find no indication in any of
them that the slot between the land areas and adjacent the ticket parts
is sufficient by itself for achieving the objectives. The actual
purpose of the application was the development of a control ticket coupled with
its associated marking system. (See the disclosure, p. 9) Since the
related patents indicate the necessity of an aperture in the header or tab
section, we cannot see that there could have been any "intent" on the part of
the applicant not to include this essential feature as being necessary for the
purpose of the ticket.
Further on this point, we considered the affidavits filed by the inventors.
These affidavits, which are nearly identical, state:
3. As shown in the drawings our control ticket can be described
as being multi-section and multi-part. Each part has at least
one section with magnetizable material and the parts of each
adjoining part are separated from one another, at least in part,
by an elongated aperture. Other apertures are shown with each
ticket part, there being one aperture in the section with
magnetizable material and one aperture in a section without
magnetizable material. (underlining added)
4. It was my intention that the invention be claimed as fully
as would be permissible in the light of the prior art. However,
my co-inventor and I relied completely upon our patent attorneys
to do so since we do not have any expertise in the manner
in which an invention is properly described and claimed.
We do not believe these affidavits are helpful to the applicant. To the
contrary. They do state that the inventor intended to claim the invention
"as fully as would be permissible," But that surely is a natural desideratum
of most if not every intending applicant for patent. It would be unusual
for him to want something less. Paragraph 3 of the affidavit makes it clear that the
invention involved both a slot separating the parts and. an aperture "in"
the magnetized section. There is no suggestion in the affidavits that the
control ticket does not always have an aperture 22. Furthermore, since it is
possible for there to be only one part to the control ticket, there would
be no "elongated aperture" (which we call a slot) in such a ticket.
At the Hearing, Mr. Barriger suggested the slot might be used to position
the recording head. There is, however, no disclosure of that use for the
slot, and the whole tenor of all the disclosures, including the U.S, patent,
is that the purpose of the slot is to permit separation of the parts with a
knife without damage to the magnetizable coatings. Whether a slot for that
purpose is air inventive improvement is, in our mind, questionable, but
assuming in arguendo that it is, it must be a different invention than what
was claimed originally. Section 50 permits reissuing to claim the "same
invention" as was claimed originally, not a different invention. As was stated
by Mr. Justice Maclean, for example, in Northern Electric v Photosound,
1936 Ex. C.R. 75 @89:
it is quite clear that the amended patent must be for the same
invention and cannot embrace any new invention.
In the vast majority of cases in which a patent is defective or
inoperative, its defects must be found to reside in the description
given of the invention in the specification or drawings, or in both,
and it was to cure such defects that relief was provided by statute.
Hence, in most cases, the purpose of a re-issue is to amend an
imperfect patent, defects of statement or drawings, and not subject-
matter, so that it may disclose and protect the patentable subject
matter which it was the purpose of that patent to secure to its
inventor. Therefore the re-issue patent must be confined to the
invention which the patentee attempted to describe and claim in his
original specification, but which owing to "inadvertence, error or
mistake," he failed to do perfectly; he is not to be granted a new
patent but an amended patent. An intolerable situation would be
created if anything else were permissible. It logically follows of
course, that no patent is "defective or inoperative" within the
meaning of the Act, by reason of its failure to describe and claim
subject-matter outside the limits of that invention, as conceived
or perceived by the inventor, at the time of his invention.
The applicant has referred to Curl Master v Atlas Brush and Burton Parsons v
Hewlett-Packard as establishing that an error by an applicant's attorney is
sufficient justification for reissue. We have already noted that the action
of the applicant's agent was deliberate, and therefore not an error
which may be corrected by reissue. In addition, in the Curl Master decision
the patent was found defective by reason of insufficient description and that
resulted in a mistake, namely, a failure on the part of the patent agent to
fully comprehend and describe the invention for which he had been instructed
to seek a patent. The Burton Parsons decision indicates that the failure of
the patent agent to alter the claim in view of prior art contributed to the
"mistake". What we have before us here, however, does not parallel what
occurred in either Curl Master or Burton Parsons. The filing of several appli-
cations, of which one resulted in a patent containing 57 pages of disclosure,
21 claims and 19 figures of drawings, shows that the agent did comprehend the
invention. In addition, he also submitted detailed argument to overcome the
cited art in the patent being reissued. Consequently neither Curlmaster nor
Burton Parsons are precedents of use to the applicant.
We are satisfied that the applicant is not entitled by law to reissue his
patent, and recommend that the decision of the examiner to refuse the
application be upheld. He is, of course, entitled to claims for a control
ticket containing positioning aperture 22 either with or without the separating
slot, but that is already protected by the original patent.
G.A. Asher
Chairman
Patent Appeal Board
I concur with the recommendations of the Patent Appeal Board and refuse to
grant a patent on this application. The applicant has six months within which
to appeal this decision under the provisions of Section 44 of the Patent Act.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Agent for Applicant
Robert H. Barrigar,
Box 434, Station A,
Ottawa, Ont.
K1N 8V5
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 27th.day of August, 1976