Application was made for a patent for using an apparatus previously disclosed as suitable for a different use.
Held: Parker J said: ‘But where the question is solely a question of prior publication, it is not, in my opinion, enough to prove that an apparatus described in an earlier Specification could have been used to produce this or that result. It must also be shown that the Specification contains clear and unmistakable directions so to use it.’
Judges:
Parker J
Citations:
[1908] 25 RPC 428
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – BTH Co Ltd v Metropolitan Vickers Electrical Co Ltd 1928
Lord Dunedin construed the claim in question and proceeded to consider the Tesla Patent, the alleged anticipation of the patent claim: ‘Now that being my view of the Claim, I turn to Tesla, and what I have to ask myself is this – Would a man who was . .
Cited – General Tire and Rubber Company v Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Ltd CA 1971
Degree of Novelty Required before patent grant
The court set out the test for novelty required to be established before a patent could properly be granted: ‘To determine whether a patentee’s claim has been anticipated by an earlier publication it is necessary to compare the earlier publication . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 29 April 2022; Ref: scu.188261