Patent decision
- BL number
- O/643/19
- Concerning rights in
- GB1601247.8
- Hearing Officer
- Dr J E Porter
- Decision date
- 24 October 2019
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Akagi Nyugyo Co. Ltd
- Provisions discussed
- Patents Act 1977 section 76
- Keywords
- Added subject matter
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
Summary: The application concerns packaging for frozen desserts and in particular containers which hold frozen dessert materials along with separately-contained food or drink material.
A “first example” describes a container with a main body for holding the dessert and then an inner lid with an inverted conical shape, contained partially within the main body, and with an inner space holding different edible matter. An outer lid covers the container but this may be substituted for a seal that can close the main body and the inner lid from above.
A “first embodiment” then describes a similar container but where the inner lid and main body are configured to be more easily separable than the fit structure between the inner lid and outer lid. Thus the inner lid is more likely to be removed with the outer lid, rather than remaining in the main body and frozen dessert. The independent claims were amended to include this feature but also the alternative of replacing the outer lid with a seal. This was objected to as added matter by way of intermediate generalisation.
The hearing officer saw force in the argument that the skilled person would - more likely than not - perceive a degree of interplay between the first example and the first embodiment, seeing the former as setting out context and details for the latter. A pointer in a closing paragraph to a seal was also a reminder to the skilled person of the alternative in the first example. With reference to Nokia and Palmaz he accepted, on the balance of probabilities, that it would be apparent to the skilled person that the seal alternative was generally applicable to the claimed invention, and was not disclosed only in the particular context of the first example alone. The skilled reader would thus have understood the specification to disclose sealing, as an alternative to fitting, within the context of the features of the first embodiment.
There was no added matter and the application was found to be in order for grant.
Full decision O/643/19 
461Kb
