Baldwin Int'l Radio Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Western Electric Co. Inc. et al  

citation(s): (1934) S.C.R. 94

  Case Comment  copyright 1997-2007 Donald M. Cameron

Contents

Summary

Facts

The Decision

At p. 100

"In order to decide an objection grounded upon anticipation, one must look at the description in the specification, so as to ascertain what the invention really is. The claims may add light to it, but they are not meant for that purpose, and their object is mainly to define the extent of the monopoly to which protection is granted. It may be that a patentee has discovered and described a new thing for which he made no claim, in which case he will have no "exclusive property and privilege," but obviously his patent may not be displaced upon the ground of prior knowledge or use by others."

At p. 103-104

"...Moulton L.J. said that it was not a good objection to a claim for a combination that the patentee had not distinguished old from new; that, apart from the duty of the patentee to delimit his invention, there is now no such duty on his part." 

At p. 105:

"What is required, therefore, under our law, is that the applicant should give a full and correct description of the invention and its operation or use. if the invention is a new process he should set forth clearly the various steps in the process; if a machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, the specification should explain the me&od of constructing, making or compounding the same. Then, in every patent, the claim or claims must state distinctly what the applicant regards as new and in which he claims an exclusive property and privilege. If the invention be a new thing, or the improvement of a thing, he must so state; but where the invention consists merely in the new combination of old elements or devices, such combination is sufficiently described if the elements or devices of which it is composed are all named and their mode of operation given and the new useful result to be accomplished pointed out (Compare: Bates v. Coe (1878), 98 U.S. 31). It is only if the applicant desires to claim invention for a subordinate element per se that it is necessary for the patentee to claim the element separately, if he wishes to secure in it an exclusive property and privilege."

 

Endnotes

Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index

JurisDiction Home Page