Case Comment

Electrolier Manufacturing Company Ltd v.
Dominion Manufacturers Limited

citation(s): [1934] S.C.R. 436 (per Rinfret, J.)

copyright 1997-2007 Donald M. Cameron




The Decision

At p. 441

"We are not mentioning these anterior publications for the purpose of negativing anticipation. Counsel for the appellant expressly declared he was not relying on anticipation. We are referred to these former patents (the only ones produced at the trial), in order to show the state of the art and the extent of the advance made by Pahlow, the inventor of the respondent's device. He eliminated the use of the fastening pin or of the tool operation or of the machine operation. Indeed, he did away with the method of manually connecting the parts of the handle. He devised an article which is useful, practical, of manifest ingenuity (Pneumatic Tyre Company v. Casswell (1896) 13 R.P.C. 375 at 380) and producing a beneficial result. Though simple, his device cannot be said to have been obvious. Raymond applied his mind to the same object, and he never thought of the use to which the pliable material could be put as it was by Pahlow. Raymond's patent issued several years before Pahlow's and yet Pahlow's idea never occurred to the skilled craftsmen working on these or similar handles, although the bendable tongue or finger had been suggested by Raymond."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

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

JurisDiction Home Page