Catchwords:

PATENTS — patent application for method of reducing aluminosilicate scale in the Bayer process — appeal under s 60(4) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) from a decision of a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents — claim construction — whether claims include within their scope a reaction product mixture containing a single type of small silane molecule — validity — lack of support — s 40(3) of the Act — comparison between invention specified in the claims and that described in the specification — technical contribution to the art — validity — lack of clear and complete description — s 40(2)(a) of the Act — whether specification enables skilled addressee to perform invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden — leave to appeal granted — appeal dismissed

PATENTS — application to amend patent application — whether proposed amendments are allowable under s 102 of the Act — claim construction — whether proposed amended claims include within their scope a reaction product mixture containing only the named small molecules — whether proposed amendments overcome deficiencies previously identified by the primary judge — lack of support — lack of clear and complete description — power to amend under s 105(1A) — ambit and nature of s 105(1A) — exercise of discretion under s 105(1A) — relevant factors and circumstances in the exercise of discretion to amend — leave to appeal granted — appeal allowed