GENERAL MILLS INCORPORATED (MILLER'S) APPLICATION
Reports of Patent Design and Trade Mark Cases · 1972
Patent application-Opposition-Prior publication-Effect 0..( general disclosure in earlier document-Polymerisation process-Claim to use of lithium stabilised clay as catalyst-Prior disclosure 0.( use of clay and an alkali-Claim construed narrowly in light ofstatements in body ofspecification-s-Anticipation avoided-Appeal by opponents dismissed. 10A patent application related to a polymerisation process conducted in the presence of lithium stabilised clay as a catalyst, the specification containing a warning that lithium nitrate was to be avoided.In opposition proceedings the opponents alleged (inter alia) prior publication in a specification which described the use in relevant processes of clay as a catalyst, the specification also stating that alkaline material could be added.15 The prior specification added that the alkaline material might be anyone ofthe hydroxides or alkaline-reacting salts of the alkali and alkaline-earth metals, and a number of such metals were mentioned, but not lithium.The hearing officer having dismissed (inter alia) the objection ofprior publication, the opponents appealed to the Patents Appeal Tribunal.Held, dismissing the appeal, that one had to read into claim 1, in the light of the 20 disclosure in the body ofthe specification in suit, the further limitation on the definition of lithium stabilised clay that it was confined to clays where the lithium had been added in the form of a compound but avoiding lithium nitrate.On this basis there was no anticipation.Without such a limitation a finding of anticipation would prima facie have resulted. 25Observations on the test for anticipation where the prior document contains a general disclosure, particularly in chemical cases.Cases referred to by Tribunal: Hills v.Evans (1862) 31 L.J.Ch.457; 4 De G.F. & J. 288.Molins and Molins Machine Co. Ltd. v. Industrial Machinery Co. Ltd. (1938) 55 R.P.C. 30 31.