The appellant instituted action against the first respondent based on the alleged infringement of its patent. The first respondent denied such infringement and counterclaimed for revocation of the patent on grounds of, inter alia, lack of novelty and obviousness. The patent had 15 claims of which claims 2 to 12 were directly or indirectly dependent on claim 1 while claim 13, although based on claims 1 to 7, contained an added aspect that was, for the purposes of this judgment, of special importance. The Commissioner of Patents was called upon to consider the issues of validity and infringement in relation to claim 1 only. He concluded that claim 1 was valid and infringed, and issued a certificate of validity. The appeal had to be upheld to the extent that the Court below dismissed the application to amend the specification and finally revoked the patent. The application to amend the specification of the patent was granted