or of diagnosis practised on the human or animal body and have no application to the facts of the present case. The
new use of a known chemical compound, dealt with in the Mobil case, is also far removed from the problem now
under consideration.
For these reasons I hold that the court a quo correctly found that the words denoting use in claim 9 of the 1987
patent and claim 1 of the 1989 patent do not rescue the patents from anticipation by the Blau patent.
The other issue concerning novelty raised on appeal and in the court a quo relates to integer (d) of claim 1 of the
1989 patent which, it will be recalled, consists of a
"sealing means at the said inlet whereby the inlet can be sealed to the said pipe."
It was contended on behalf of appellant that this integer was not disclosed in the Blau patent. The contention is, in
my view, without substance. The "inlet" referred to in integer (d) means the inlet in the "housing" of the valve which
is connectable to a pipe; and the sealing means is one which seals the connection between the inlet and the pipe.
In the third of the extracts from the Blau patent quoted above reference is made to
". . . a sealing ring 5 . . . supported between the closure cap and the edge of a socket (not shown) of a container or pipe
socket part."
This description must be read in conjunction with figure 1 attached to the specification and the number 5 serves to
identify the sealing ring. Having studied the illustration in conjunction with the description in the body of the
specification, I am of the view that this sealing ring performs substantially the same function as the sealing means
described in integer (d). Consequently integer (d) does not save the 1989 patent from anticipation by the Blau
patent.
Accordingly the appeal fails. The order of the court a quo stands, save that it is necessary to provide that the
period of one month referred to therein will now run as from the date of this judgment.
The following order is made:
(1) The appeal is dismissed with costs.
(2) The period of one month referred to in paragraph 2 of the order of the court a quo shall run as from the date
of this judgment.
(EM Grosskopf, Nestadt, Harms JJA and Scott AJA, concurred in the judgment of Corbett CJ.)
For the appellant:
L Bowman SC instructed by John Galgut, Johannesburg
For the respondent:
ABS Franklin instructed by John and Kernick, Johannesburg