https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308868 A prior publication anticipates a patent only if it discloses the whole invention with clear and unmistakable directions enabling the skilled person to practise it; unrelated materials or a mosaic of separate documents are insufficient, so the patent was not anticipated. The invention was not obvious because the decisive inventive feature was the specific arrangement that automatically threaded the calendar rolls, and long-standing failure by others to solve the practical problem supported patentable subject matter. The Canadian prior-use defence failed because the statutory language covered public use anywhere before filing, but the only proved use was by the inventor himself. The respondents' apparatus infringed because redirecting the air jet was only an immaterial mechanical equivalent. en-us Fri, 23 Nov 1928 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:28:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308868 A prior publication anticipates a patent only if it discloses the whole invention with clear and unmistakable directions enabling the skilled person to practise it; unrelated materials or a mosaic of separate documents are insufficient, so the patent was not anticipated. The invention was not obvious because the decisive inventive feature was the specific arrangement that automatically threaded the calendar rolls, and long-standing failure by others to solve the practical problem supported patentable subject matter. The Canadian prior-use defence failed because the statutory language covered public use anywhere before filing, but the only proved use was by the inventor himself. The respondents' apparatus infringed because redirecting the air jet was only an immaterial mechanical equivalent. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Nov 1928 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308868