Indeed, one difficulty we have in the absence of an
express provision excluding it, is to identify a reason
why the legislature would have intended to deprive an
applicant of the benefit of s 160 in relation to such
an important matter as the time for acceptance of an
application. having in mind that 1ts terms are so apt
to apply to such a matter. There could obviously be
cases where an application is not accepted in time due
to any of the circumstances mentioned in s 160(1) and
(2) and those provision, as we have pointed out, are
different in their nature and scope of operation from 5s
54(1B). For instance, s 160(1) compels an extension
for an appropriate period where the office is at fault.
Why should not this right, on® might ask, be available
to an applicant whose application lapses at the expiry
of the 21-month period because the Commissioner has not
dealt with 1t through some error in the Patent Office?
The answer given is that the legislature has, by
inserting sub-s (1B), shown an intention to confine the
power of extension to that contained in the
sub-section. We donot accept this araqument. The
sub-section and 5s 160 are different in character.
Section 160, although it places no limit on the time
for extension, deals with extensions needed by reason
of the specific circumstances therein mentioned. In
the absence of an express provision excluding it, we
think it applies."