Samuel Abekah-Mensah (Patent): IPO 1 Feb 2006

The applicant failed to respond to an examination report under section 18(3) of the Act, by the final date specified in the report for reply. He did not communicate with the Office at all until a letter was sent to him some 18 months after the final date for reply warning that the end of the Rule 34 period was approaching and that it was intended to treat the application as refused. He then contacted the Office requesting that the application be reactivated. He gave as reasons for failing to reply that he had been disappointed with the examination report (which indicated that the invention was substantially anticipated), that he had latterly received advice that it might nevertheless be possible to formulate patentable claims, that he had been concentrating on the prosecution of a parallel US patent application so had not pursued the UK one, and that he had become unemployed (six months after the final date to reply). The hearing officer found that these reasons were not sufficient to justify exercise of discretion to allow the application to proceed, and he refused the application.

Judges:

Mr P Marchant

Citations:

[2006] UKIntelP o03606, GB0114888.1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 18(3)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 14 October 2022; Ref: scu.454627