It appears to me that the specification does need amendment to comply with the requirements of the Act. In the first place, it is uncertain, confused and vague. Although it refers to a container for "pharmaceutical and cosmetic products", Mr. King, for the appellant, told me that it was intended to cover a container for either type of product. The phrase "the areas representing elements of said inscription" was, I was assured, intended to mean more than merely "the inscription", though what more was intended never clearly appeared. The phrase "surfaces broken up by a multitude of small projections" is not precise, and its vagueness becomes a matter of importance when I am told that the word "small" was adopted to describe something larger than minute and was intended to convey the notion that the projections should at least be of a size visible to the naked eye; and the word "projection" was intended to cover sharp projections and not what were described as round projections - "protuberances", as they were called. The point of these distinctions is to mark off the invention claimed from inscriptions by processes such as sand-blasting, which the Acting Deputy Commissioner considered were not novel. I agree with the Acting Deputy Commissioner when he said: "In the absence of any definition, "small projections" may or may not include the projections which would result from sand-blasting or engraving ".