Case: Welch Perrin &amp; Co Pty Ltd v Worrel [1960] HCA 91 ; (1961) 106 CLR 588
Outcome: followed
It is well established that the claims contained in the specification set out the legal limits of the monopoly. Yet, when construing the claims and determining the nature and extent of this monopoly it is necessary to consider the context in which the claims are made. This requires a consideration of the specification as a whole even if there is no apparent ambiguity in the claim; Minnesota Mining &amp; Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd [1980] HCA 9 ; (1980) 144 CLR 253 (' Minnesota Mining ') at 267-272; D&eacute;cor at 410-411; Beltreco at [75]-[78]. The specification is made up of several parts which have different functions: Welch Perrin &amp; Co Pty Ltd v Worrel [1960] HCA 91 ; (1961) 106 CLR 588 (' Welch Perrin ') at 610; D&eacute;cor at 391, 398; Beltreco at [73]. Nevertheless, reference to it as a whole may explain or elucidate the background to the claims, assist in ascertaining the meaning of a technical term or in resolving ambiguities in the construction of claims: Martin v Scribal Pty Ltd [1954] HCA 48 ; (1954) 92 CLR 17 (' Martin ') per Taylor J at 97; Welch Perrin at 610-611; Electric &amp; Musical Industries Ltd v Lissen Ltd (1939) 56 RPC 23 (' Electric &amp; Musical Industries ') at 41-42, Interlego AG v Toltoys Pty Ltd [1973] HCA 1 ; (1973) 130 CLR 461 (' Interlego ') at 478-479; D&eacute;cor at 400; Sartas No 1 Pty Ltd v Koukourou &amp; Partners Pty Ltd (1994) 30 IPR 479 (' Sartas ') at 486; Beltreco at [75]. 17 It is important, however, that the focus of the inquiry remain on the claims under consideration. If claims are clear and unambiguous, they are not to be varied, qualified or made obscure by statements found in other parts of the patent: Welch Perrin at 610; Interlego at 478-479; Electric &amp; Musical Industries at 41; Rosedale Associated Manufacturers Ltd v Carlton Tyre Saving Co Ltd [1960] RPC 59 at 69; Cooper Industries Inc v Metal Manufactures Ltd (1994) 29 IPR 106 at 113; Lantech Inc v First Green Park Pty Ltd (1995) 31 IPR 327 at 333; Beltreco at [74]. It is not legitimate to narrow or expand the boundaries of the monopoly as fixed by the words of the claims by adding to those words a gloss drawn from other parts of the specification: Welch Perrin at 610; D&eacute;cor at 391, 398; Braas &amp; Co GmbH v Humes Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 273 at 284; Beltreco at [74]. 20 The hypothetical addressee of the patent specification is the non-inventive person skilled in the art before the priority date: Welch Perrin at 610; Populin v HB Nominees Pty Ltd (1982) 41 ALR 471 (' Populin ') at 476-477; Fisher &amp; Paykel Healthcare Pty Ltd v Avion Engineering Pty Ltd (1991) 103 ALR 239 at 260; D&eacute;cor at 397; Stanway Oyster Cylinders Pty Ltd v Marks (1996) 66 FCR 577 at 582-583; Beltreco at [81]; Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Limited v Arico Trading International Pty Limited [2001] HCA 8 ; (2001) 207 CLR 1 at [24] ; Gambro Pty Ltd v Fresenius Medical Care South East Asia Pty Ltd (2004) 61 IPR 442 at [113]; Rhone-Poulenc Agrochimie SA v UIM Chemical Services Pty Ltd (1986) 12 FCR 477 at 496; NV Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken v Mirabella International Pty Ltd (1993) 26 IPR 513 (' NV Philips ') at 531; Catnic at 225; Wheatley (Davina) v Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 7 at 141 142. Thus, the words used in a specification are to be given the meaning that the hypothetical addressee would attach to them, both in the light of his or her own general knowledge and what is disclosed in the body of the specification: D&eacute;cor at 391; Photocure at [170].