IPO The applicant, who was unassisted, did not reply within the specified period to a combined search and examination report issued on 15 January 1996. He did not contact the Patent Office until 4 July 2000, after the period prescribed by rule 34 for putting the application in order had expired on 8 May 2000. (The Office had written on 23 February 2000 warning of the imminent expiry of that period.)
The applicant argued that he had been away in Cyprus and was unaware of the expiry of the deadline until it was brought to his attention, his mail not having been forwarded due to the deliberate actions of his ex-partner. In a decision on the papers, the hearing officer refused the application because adequate reasons had not been given to justify such a long extension of the period specified for reply to the report under section 18(3), the applicant having declined to amplify the brief and incomplete details in the papers on file. It was not therefore necessary to decide whether he had a continuing underlying intention to proceed such as would justify the extension of the rule 34 period which he had requested under rule 110(4): the hearing officer would however have been prepared to give the benefit of any doubt on this.
Judges:
Mr R Kennell
Citations:
O/073/01, [2001] UKIntelP o07301, GB9522833 4
Links:
Intellectual Property
Updated: 13 October 2022; Ref: scu.454116