necessarily
not, he reven the
would [I think in must insert this
I revocation in the UK.
Such a
conere might had
to a difference
I hatment
A
گے
in the
Some grounds of
revocation V... Fraud- wi constituti
Good grains of revocation was of
the same patent
Colone KIN Y
429
which air macted & sus
the present anda. Ang King recupies a pecuber position
wn that the only way
totale
and bitters palent an
invention in the Colony, is to
Ya (wan Colony of the
1
Wt. on the The Land &
other (yon Colonies, exprciatry
the self Governing Dominions,
on the other hand.
3. I am
that
Consider, therefore id neordingly
that it w. be desirable not
to provide for the urocation
A patenti niit Kong
a
the ground &
Aon
working
m. the U.K. nsbewhere.
4. It will not Louror he
sufficient sumpty trupal
the four new onbees (2) of 3) 2 sec 5 f the Principal na
C
palent it prst.
inthetik.
5. The intention of these words "nore in
force"
Were
appeaukle, to import
that Wilters pabut panted
Lin
The Coloney.
under the
malt kong new section 5(1) of
A
the ten-formal law in forme at the dati
Colonial are
M
subjected
force".
to the Imperial patent hard
Laver brised that It is specially
of this amendiny od: (22 of 909). security desirath that
let
the
(ALGO
section
54
"substitutid" for sictions of the toe present order sad settle
Principal order it win arquath
that the words "you in force" menst
relate to the date of the Principat
0704
swergestive, blow
that the world who I amneeded.
the question
whether see 2,
27
If the impurent Act #1917
1
apples to hitters patent
granted under the It King
Primpel oc
7
... whether