Paul Bergeon v.
copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis
"The state of the art in inventions of this kind is far too advanced to allow a patent for such comprehensive claims as it could not now be possible to take a patent for the method so well-known in the prior art. If any patent can be obtained it must be restricted to a machine or device. He has failed to disclaim what belongs to the prior art. This patent claims such a monopoly which would, if good, prevent any one making any of the old devices, even covering Kelso. The claims are broad enough to cover the principle and all the known methods of carrying it out. The patentee has practically included in his patent everything found in the prior art or what is common knowledge to a skilled mechanic in that class of work. It is again the case of casting the net too wide."
Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index
Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index
JurisDiction Home Page