Category: Intellectual Property

Cosmetic Warriors Ltd, Mark Constantine, Margaret Constantine, Helen Ambrosen and Rowena Bird (Patent): IPO 25 Nov 2011

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Cosmetic Warriors Ltd under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Rowena Bird should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Mark Constantine, Margaret Constantine and Helen Ambrosen in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning her as a joint inventor be prepared for the published patent application and granted patent for the invention.

Judges:

Mr A R Bushell

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o42111, O/421/11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458524

Bruker Daltonik Gmbh, Franzen, Benter, Kersten, Lorenz and Brockmann (Patent): IPO 22 Nov 2011

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Bruker Daltonik GmbH under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Thorsten Benter, Hendrik Kersten, Matthias Lorenz and Klaus J. Brockmann should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Jochen Franzen in the published patent application for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the published patent application for the invention.

Judges:

Mr A R Bushell

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o41211

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458523

Dr Harry Nduka (Patent): IPO 25 Oct 2011

IPO The application relates to a device for controlling incontinence using a bladder pressure sensor and a muscle stimulator. The specification provides a single embodiment of a ‘Y’ shaped device consisting of a pressure sensor gauge and an electrode each forming one arm of the ‘Y’, and an anchor portion that forms the foot of the ‘Y’. A guide wire is attached at one end to the electrode and in use is intended to be attached at the opposite end to the fast twitch sphincter muscle. A remote control is also provided to allow deactivation of the electrode and voluntary voiding of the bladder by the user. The claims, which were filed later, define bladder sphincter muscle-stimulating devices in more general terms, without any of the characterising features disclosed in the description.
The hearing officer found that the claims were unduly broad in scope and unsupported as they encompassed devices that are outside of the scope of the invention as filed. These broad claims also lacked novelty in view of three documents cited by the examiner.
As the claims lacked support, the hearing officer considered the novelty of the single specific embodiment that was disclosed in the specification, and found that should the claims be limited to this embodiment then they would be novel over the cited documents, and may be non-obvious to the skilled man. The application was therefore remitted to the examiner in order to give the applicant the opportunity to file suitable amendments.

Judges:

Rowena Dinham

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP O36511

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Dr Harry Nduka (Patent)O/132/14 IPO 20-Mar-2014
IPO The invention related to a device for controlling incontinence using a bladder pressure sensor and a muscle stimulator. A previous decision relating to this case was appealed by the applicant. The subsequent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Intellectual Property

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.458495