[On 27 February 1920 the Commissioner of Patents addressed to the Solicitor-General a memorandum which, formal parts omitted, read]:

I enclose a copy of the form of application which accompanied Application No. 11906 of 1919 for a patent in the Commonwealth.

The Examiner in reporting under section 39 of the Act took exception to the words 'I claim to be the actual inventor' which, according to prescription of Form A of the Second Schedule to the Patents Regulations 1912, should read 'I am the actual inventor'. The patent attorney for the applicant contended that the use of the words 'I claim to be the actual inventor' was an alteration in form and not in substance, but it appears to me that the alteration is one of substance and that the form is not entitled to acceptance in reasonable exercise of my permissive power under sub-regulation (2) of regulation 4 of the Patents Regulations 1912. I desire also to advise you that the following letter was addressed from this Department to the patent attorney for the applicant:

In this matter, and in reply to your letter of 11 December, I have to advise you, by direction of the Commissioner, that the words 'I claim to be the actual inventor' are capable of being construed in a manner which would place upon them a meaning foreign to the direct meaning of the words 'I am the actual inventor'. The alteration is therefore regarded as an alteration in substance and not in form as alleged in your communication. In addition it is obvious from the paragraph numbered (1) in the form of patent in the First Schedule to the Patents Act that words conveying a meaning free from speculation are material. I shall be glad to have your opinion as to whether the application may be considered as prescribed by the Patents Act 1903-1909.

Referring to your memorandum of 27 February 1920, I desire to inform you that I agree that the alteration in the form is material, and that the form is,therefore, not entitled to acceptance in its present state.

[Vol. 16, p. 427]