Category: Intellectual Property

Philip Jones Et Al (Patent): IPO 23 Jan 2009

ICO The applicants had filed a PCT application just less than 14 months after the filing date of an earlier application. They requested restoration of the right of priority under PCT rule 26bis.3, on the basis that the failure to file the PCT application within the priority period was unintentional. Reasons for the delay including problems that Mr Jones encountered with the PCT filing software, and his mistaken assumption that the software would inform him of important matters such as impending deadlines. He was therefore unaware of the 12 month priority period. On the evidence provided, the hearing officer found that Mr Jones had been acting intentionally in filing the PCT application when he did – albeit that he was acting on the basis of a misunderstanding of the PCT system. Although the hearing officer accepted that Mr Jones may have acted differently if he had been aware of the deadline, he found that speculating about what Mr Jones might have done, or might have intended to do, in different circumstances was not relevant. The request was refused.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o02209

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457251

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha, Yoshinori Ishikawa, Akio Sato, Steffen Nowotny and Siegfried Scharek (Patent): IPO 16 Dec 2008

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. It was found that that Steffen Nowotny and Siegfried Scharek should also be mentioned as joint inventors in relation to the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them as such be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o32908

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457229

Paul Michael Clements (Patent): IPO 8 Dec 2008

IPO The application relates to a rotary toothbrush powered by a hand-operated lever. The hearing officer held that at the compliance date, the application as amended was not allowable because it disclosed matter which extended beyond the scope of the application as originally filed. The hearing officer however, indicated that further amendments could be filed to overcome the added matter issue and provided the applicant an opportunity to do so. In the event that the applicant fails to file such amendments by the end of the extended compliance period, the application will be refused under section 18(3) for failure to comply with section 76(2).

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o32208

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457226

Geoffrey Robinson (Patent): IPO 22 Dec 2008

IPO The application claimed a more accurate way of determining the velocity of a remote object, based on a new relativistic effect which could account for anomalies in the Doppler data from the Pioneer 10 and 11 spacecraft. The examiner considered that the invention could not be made or used, or sufficiently disclosed for its performance to be possible, because it contravened Einstein’s theory of special relativity. Agreeing, and applying the test in BlackLight Power Inc [2008] EWHC 2763, the hearing officer held that there was (1) a substantial doubt about the validity of the underlying theory and (2) no reasonable prospect that a full investigation with the benefit of expert evidence would find it to be valid. He accepted that the applicant might have found a new way to derive the known relativistic equations for Doppler shift, but pointed out that under section 1(2)(a) this would not be patentable. Application refused.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o33608

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457218

Abdul Zarif (Patent): IPO 20 Jan 2009

The application relates to a vehicle warning system. In an alert condition, an emergency vehicle device transmits a warning signal; a dedicated receiver, in a non-emergency vehicle, detects that signal and initiates a visual alert for the driver. Both transmitter and receiver have mode indicators, preferably coloured LEDs, to distinguish between standby and alert modes. Audible alerts may also be provided.
The Hearing Officer applied the steps according to Pozzoli and decided that the invention lacked inventive step over the large amount of prior art.

Citations:

[2009] UKIntelP o01509

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457235

Nelson Nazareth and The Secretary of State for Defence (Patent): IPO 29 Dec 2008

IPO This preliminary decision related to three related patents. Revocation was sought on the grounds that the application failed to disclose the invention clearly and completely enough to a person skilled in the art. Before the commencement of the evidence rounds, the patentee sought striking out of the application, or alternatively summary judgment in their favour, on the grounds that the applicant had not disclosed reasonable grounds for the application. The hearing officer agreed that the current statements of case were unclear and did not provide a basis for a revocation action, but in view particularly of the claimant’s professed other (unpleaded) grounds, decided to give the claimant an opportunity to amend his statements of claim.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o34308, O/343/08

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457221

Trigon (Trade Mark: Revocation): IPO 15 Dec 2008

IPO In response to the application for revocation the registered proprietor admitted that there had been no use of the mark in suit during the relevant five year period but claimed there were ‘proper reasons’ for non-use of its mark. The reason advanced in its counterstatement was a claim that it had been involved in a joint venture with another firm and that firm had subsequently bought its share of the business. As part of the deal the registered proprietor stated that it had entered into a gentleman’s agreement with the other party not to use the mark in suit for five years. The registered proprietor filed no evidence to substantiate its claim but it did make submissions in a letter in response to a request for summary judgement from the applicant.
The Hearing Officer considered the matter carefully but noted that the registered proprietor had not provided a copy of the agreement referred to, or any surrounding circumstances. Thus it was not possible to consider the agreement as proper reasons for non use of its mark. The registered proprietor also asked the Registrar to exercise his discretion in its favour but the Hearing Officer noted the guidance of the High Court in the case Premier Brands UK Ltd v Typhoon Europe Ltd [2000] FSR 767, that the Registrar has no discretion in revocation cases.

Judges:

Mr O Morris

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o32808

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457230

January Patents Limited (Patent): IPO 20 Nov 2008

IPO The invention concerns an electronic point of sale (EPOS) apparatus for the purchase of mobile telephone credits for use in a retail environment. As the specification explains, the purchase of mobile telephone credits or ‘top ups’ is normally processed by a specifically dedicated terminal unit. When a customer wishes to buy credit, the operator must move from their main point of sale terminal, operate the dedicated terminal unit to obtain the required amount of ‘top up’ in the form of a voucher and then return to the main point of sale terminal to process the payment by the customer for the ‘top up’. This is time-consuming for both operator and customer. The invention provides a combined EPOS machine which includes a software control module, which is operable to provide mobile telephone credit and invoice the purchase of that credit, and the hardware to print not only the ‘top-up’ voucher but also the receipt for the ‘top up’ voucher together with any other retail purchases.
Applying the Aerotel test, the Hearing Officer considered that the contribution in the amended claims involved the combination of software and hardware and did not relate solely to a computer program nor a method for doing business. Applying the Windsurfing test (as modified by Pozzoli), she found the invention to be inventive. Allowing the application, she remitted it back to the examiner for further examination.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o31208

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457202

John Darrell Foley (Patent): IPO 7 Nov 2008

IPO The application disclosed a traction and exercise apparatus for relief particularly of lower back pain, in which a ladder was provided on a frame so that the patient could ascend, descend, bend or twist whilst under traction from above and/or below from springs attached at one end to the frame and at the other to a belt around the user’s torso. The hearing officer held that insofar as the scope of the invention could be determined, it was not new and did not involve an inventive step having regard to an earlier application by the a same applicant, the only differences being relatively minor modifications such as would be made by the skilled person as part of the common general knowledge in the art. The applicant’s proposed amendment was not allowable because it disclosed features which were clearly not present in the application as originally filed. Since there was nothing new or inventive in the in the original disclosure, the hearing officer found that it was not possible to amend the application and refused the application.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o30308

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457203

Tony Macmahon Frank Mcgurk v Tracey Pilling (Patent): IPO 16 Oct 2008

IPO The claimants (Messrs MacMahon and McGurk) brought proceedings under section 8, asking the Comptroller to transfer the patent application to them. The defendant and original applicant (Mrs Pilling), did not contest the reference. Consequently the Hearing Officer ordered that the application should proceed in the names of the claimants (jointly) instead of the defendant.
The claimants also asked the Comptroller to confirm that they were joint inventors, along with the defendant’s husband. However, the application had not yet been published (so section 13(3) does not operate), and no statement of inventorship had been filed.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o28208

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457192

Smart Holograms Limited,Millington, Lowe, Davidson, Blyth, Kabilan and Marshall: IPO 27 Nov 2008

(Patent) An uncontested application was filed by Smart Holograms Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007 and section 13(3) of the Patents Act 1977. It was found that Roger Bradley Millington should be mentioned as sole inventor in relation to any patent granted for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as sole inventor be prepared for the published patent application. The decision serves as a certificate, issued in accordance with section 13(3), to the effect that Christopher Robin Lowe, Colin Bennett Davidson, Jeffrey Blyth, Satyamoorthy Kabilan and Alexander James Marshall should not have been mentioned as inventors in the published patent application.

Judges:

Mrs S Williams

Citations:

GB 0703189.1, [2008] UKIntelP o31508

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 13(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457208

Cambridge Semiconductor Limited, Niek Van Der Duijn Schouten and David Michael Garner (Patent): IPO 22 Dec 2008

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Cambridge Semiconductor Limited under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Niek van der Duijn Schouten should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with David Michael Garner in any patent granted for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the published patent application for the invention.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o33508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457213

Gradco (Japan) Ltd and Krdc Co Ltd (Patent): IPO 10 Nov 2008

IPO This was a somewhat unusual restoration case in that it centres around the time periods in which to file a legitimate application for restoration of a patent rather than the facts and circumstances surrounding the failure to pay the renewal fees.
The renewal fees in respect of the fifth year of this patent fell due on 11th July 2006. The renewal fees were not paid by that date or during the period allowed under section 25(4) upon payment of the prescribed additional fees. The application for restoration was filed on 11th March 2008, outside the thirteen months prescribed under rule 40(1) of the Patents Rules 2007 for applying for restoration.
Notwithstanding this, the applicant requested that the Comptroller use his discretion under Section 101 in allowing the application to stand and that it should also be considered under the terms of the Human Rights Act 1998, Part II, The First Protocol, Article 1, Protection of Property.
The applicant suggested that s.101 in some way bestows a general discretion upon the comptroller to accept an action or an application despite the fact that it is not in compliance with the Act and Rules. The HO decided s.101 doesn’t bestow any discretion to do anything. It simply states that where discretion is vested elsewhere in the Act and Rules, a party has the right to be heard before that discretion is exercised. So it does not bestow any general discretionary ability on the comptroller to overlook a failure to meet a statutory requirement. Thus he found he had no discretion to overlook the failure to meet the rule 40(1) period under s.101 nor under Schedule 4 Part 1 to the 2007 Rules, which specifically precludes Rule 40(1) from being extended.
He also found that UK patent law adequately provides for restoration of patents and the applicant did not comply with these provisions. There had been no limitation of access to these provisionsand hence no deprivation of possessions under the rights afforded through the Human Rights Act 1998.The application for restoration was therefore refused.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o30508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457201

Nats (En Route) Plc, Brian Janes, Stephen James Pember and Alison Laura Udal Roberts (Patent): IPO 13 Oct 2008

IPO An uncontested application was filed by NATS (EN ROUTE) PLC originally under section 13(1) of the Patents Act 1977 though the application was subsequently taken as filed under rule 10(2) of the Patent Rules 2007. The applicants also filed an uncontested application under section 13(3). It was found that Stephen James Pember and Alison Laura Udal Roberts should be mentioned as joint inventors in any patents granted for the inventions and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the published patent applications. The decision serves as a certificate, issued in accordance with section 13(3), to the effect that Brian Janes should not have been mentioned as an inventor in the published patent applications

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o27908, O/279/08

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457184

Seo, Se,O Site Builder, Se,O Tourism Site Builder, Se,O Property Site Builder, Se,O Automotive Site Builder (Series of Five Trade Marks) (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 14 Oct 2008

The opposition was based on the fact (generally accepted) that the acronym SEO meant Search Engine Optimisation; the remainder of each marked being purely descriptive.
The Hearing Officer found that the additional element in the marks means that they were not ‘exclusively composed . . .’ and the Section 3(1)(d) objection was dismissed accordingly.
However, the Sections 3(1)(b) and 3(1)(c) objections were upheld since ‘search engine optimisation’ was specified in all the goods and services in the application, save for ‘Stationery, wall charts; diaries, notebooks and writing implements’ in Class 16. The registration was permitted to proceed in respect of these goods only.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o28108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457188

Gram Engineering Pty Ltd (Patent): IPO 9 Oct 2008

IPO The invention related to a panel (a fence panel, roof panel or cladding panel) characterised by a particular pattern of corrugations, which was described as having aesthetic properties. Applying the Aerotel test, the Hearing Officer held that the application related to no more than an aesthetic creation as such. He declined to limit section 1(2)(b) to the fine arts, and rejected the applicant’s arguments that it also gave an improved distribution of glare as being undisclosed and vague, reversibility of the panel as being unclaimed and aesthetic, an illusion of greater width as being aesthetic, and greater ease of manufacture as being vague and unsubstantiated. There was nothing in the application that could be incorporated into the claims so as to remedy the defect, and the Hearing Officer therefore rejected the application.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o27508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457174

Inventech UK Limited (Patent): IPO 30 Oct 2008

IPO Having regard to the above provisions the examiner held that the comptroller was not generally obliged to supply certified translations of non-English language documents cited during search and examination of an application under the 1977 Act. He did not accept that failure to do this was a breach of human rights or natural justice, or was a procedural impropriety. The application would be remitted to the examiner to consider arguments on novelty and inventive step advanced at the hearing. The applicant had asked for costs, but no award was made as these were ex parte proceedings.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o29808

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457177

Mathsoft Engineering Education, Inc (Patent): IPO 2 Oct 2008

IPO The invention related to a method and system for managing information which automatically generated metadata indicating the provenance of information that was being copied from a first document to a second document, and associated the metadata with the second document for transmission therewith across a communications network. The metadata had a data structure which included a portion indicating an original source document for the information and/or a portion indicating an intermediary document from which the information was last provided.
Applying the Aerotel test and refusing the application, the hearing officer held that the contribution was solely the effect of running a program. He did not accept either that the contribution was outside the program exclusion because it generated a data structure (BL O/255/05 considered), or that the contribution lay in the incorporation of a data structure into a communications network as in BL O/010/07.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o26708

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457182

Andrew Emery (Patent): IPO 3 Oct 2008

IPO The application relates to a cricket training mat. The mat comprises lines and areas defined in various colours that give feedback to both left and right handed batsmen and bowlers on the line and length of a delivery. Although construing the inventive concept differently to the examiner the hearing officer reached the same final conclusion as the examiner that invention lacked an inventive step over the cited prior art. The hearing officer also upheld the examiner’s objection that the claims were unclear and failed to define the matter for which the applicant sought protection. The hearing officer found that the application did provide an enabling disclosure.
The hearing officer ordered that: (i) in the event of the compliance period not being extended, the application should be treated as refused under section 20(1); (ii) in the event of the compliance period being extended and amendments being filed, the application should be referred back to the examiner for further consideration; (iii) in the event of the compliance period being extended but no amendments being filed, the application should be treated as refused under section 20(1) on expiry of the extended compliance period.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o27008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457183

Kermi Gmbh (Patent): IPO 2 Oct 2008

IPO The Office’s initial view of an application to make two minor corrections to the translation of a German language specification of a European patent (UK) was that the first proposed correction was not appropriate, but that the second one was. This initial view was explained in a letter to the proprietor, and several follow-up letters were sent. No response was received, and so the Hearing Officer took a decision on the papers – refusing the first proposed correction and allowing the second.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o26808

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457180

Joseph Thompson (Patent): IPO 14 Oct 2008

IPO The invention is described as a perpetual motion machine that would create more energy than it consumes. The idea was found to be contrary to the principle of conservation of energy. The application was refused because the invention was not capable of industrial application and was not disclosed in a manner clear enough and complete enough to be performed by the skilled person

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o28008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457179

James Campbell v Aberdeen University Mohammed Imbabi (Patent): IPO 8 Oct 2008

IPO A patent application for an air permeable wall panel was filed by Aberdeen University. The pursuer (claimant), a Chartered Architect also based in Aberdeen, claimed that the invention belonged to him on the ground that it was made by a student who was employed by him and working under his supervision.
It was common ground that the inventive concept in the patent application(s) is the use of an intermediate layer having a graduated filtering profile (eg. to reduce clogging). The Hearing Officer decided that this inventive concept was present in a research proposal written by a professor of the University in 1997 – prior to any involvement from the pursuer or the student. He therefore concluded that the professor was the actual deviser of the invention, and that the University was entitled to the patent applications.
A request for expenses (costs) to be awarded above the standard scale was refused because the defenders (defendants) had refused to try mediation. The hearing was held at Aberdeen.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o27408

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457178

Roche Palo Alto Llc, Andrew Wolff, Fiona Baker and John Richard Langridge (Patent): IPO 29 Sep 2008

IPO As a result of an uncontested application filed under rule 10(2) by Roche Palo Alto LLC, the patent proprietor, it was found that Fiona Baker and John Richard Langridge should be mentioned as joint inventors along with Andrew Wolff in the granted EP (UK) patent and directed that an addendum slip mentioning them as joint inventors be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o26308

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457156

Norman Paterson and Nicholas Jones (Patent): IPO 30 Sep 2008

IPO The application related to a device for generating electricity by pumping water to an impeller attached to a generator. The hearing officer upheld the examiner’s objection that the invention operated in a manner contrary to well-established physical laws and was therefore neither capable of industrial application nor sufficiently disclosed.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o26608

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(1)(c) 4 14(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457154

Dynamotors Inc (Patent): IPO 3 Oct 2008

IPO The application related to control of a brushless motor system. The motor used LED switches to speed up or slow down the rotating armature to optimize torque in response to position and speed information. The difference from a previous patent application by the applicant, US 6049187, was found to be the use of separate optical sensors to detect each of speed and position, and features relating to how this was done. Overall, the hearing officer considered the differences to not consititute an inventive step over US 6049187 and the common general knowledge of use of optical sensors in the field.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o27108

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457170

Symbian Limited (Patent): IPO 24 Sep 2008

IPO The invention automated the purely conversational exchange of names between two people to establish mutual contacts by comparing lists of contact entries stored in devices such as mobile telephones and displaying to a user only those contacts determined to be common; neither user would therefore have access to all of the other’s contacts. The comparison preferably involved the application of a one-way function such as a hash key to the contacts data so that only a representation of the data, not the data itself, would be communicated outside the device.
Applying the Aerotel test and refusing the applications as relating to computer programs as such, the hearing officer held that the contribution was solely the effect of running a program and did not accept that there was a technical effect by reason of improved data security. He did not accept that a manual equivalent involving the use of a trusted third party to compare the lists was within the scope of the invention (an argument advanced by the applicant to show that the contribution could not relate solely to a computer program), but if it was he held that it was not technical in nature even if it passed the third Aerotel step.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o26008

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457161

02Go (Trade Mark: Opposition): IPO 17 Oct 2008

The opponent’s opposition was based on its ownership of two prior Community applications for the marks O2 and O2 which have been accepted but not yet registered, which cover identical goods as those of the application. The opponent also filed evidence to substantiate its reputation in the telecommunications field and this reputation was acknowledged by the applicant.
Under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer considered that the opponent’s best case resided in its O2 mark and he compared this mark in some detail with the applicant’s O2GO and device mark. The device element appears between the letter O and numeral 2 and is said to represent a ‘greater than’ sign but as it is circular could equally be seen as mere decoration. The word GO appearing in the applicant’s mark is often used to refer to goods that are to be drunk or consumed ‘on the go’ and this view is reinforced in this case where it is preceded by the numeral 2 to read 2GO. That said the Hearing Officer did not think that the O2 element would be overlooked by the average consumer and considered the marks to have some visual similarity and a significant degree of aural similarity. While there is little conceptual similarity the Hearing Officer considered that overall there was a likelihood of direct confusion or confusion in the context that the applicant’s goods emanated from an undertaking linked to the opponent. Opposition succeeded on this ground.
In view of his decision under Section 5(2)(b) the Hearing Officer saw no need to consider the grounds under Sections 5(3) or 5(4)(a) but in passing observed that the opponent’s reputation in its core goods was some distance from the goods at issue here. In the absence of appropriate evidence it was likely that the opponent would fail on these grounds.
The Hearing Officer also dealt with the opponent’s submissions that because the applicant had simply denied that the respective marks were not similar in his counterstatement, and had not denied the opponent’s claims under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a), then as the respective marks had been found to be similar, the opponent should succeed in respect of these two grounds without further ado. The Hearing Officer noted that the Counterstatement had been completed when the applicant was acting on his own behalf although later he was professionally represented. While pleadings and denials should always be clearly made the applicant had made no admissions and in a case where there might be ambiguity it was not permissible to make assumptions as the opponent submitted in this case. Thus there was a specific need to file evidence in support of its grounds under Sections 5(3) and 5(4)(a).
Final decision not given until the opponent’s Community Trade Mark applications proceeds to registration.

Judges:

Mr C Bowen

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o28608

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457164

General Electric Company (Patent): IPO 29 Sep 2008

IPO The application relates to the blending of phosphors to achieve a blend absorbing EM radiation having a particular range of wavelengths and emitting light having wavelengths in a visible spectrum. The blend comprises (Tb,Y,Lu) 3Al5O12:Ce3+ and at least one other phosphor, including, among others, (Gd,La,Lu,Sc)2O3:Eu3+ and (Sr,Ca) MgAl10O17:Eu2+.
The Hearing Officer found that the invention was not novel in respect of the phosphors noted above and that more generally it did not involve an inventive step. He also concluded that the claim did not fall foul of s.14(5)(c) and that plurality might be overcome by amendment. Although the applicants have indicated that they do not wish to proceed further they have been given the opportunity to amend.

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o26508

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457150