Patent decision
- BL number
- O/044/18
- Concerning rights in
- GB1611647.7
- Hearing Officer
- Mr B Buchanan
- Decision date
- 22 January 2018
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Martin-Baker Aircraft Co. Limited
- Provisions discussed
- Sections 14(5)(c), 18(5) & 76
- Keywords
- Added subject matter, Divisional application, Support
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
This decision considers whether GB1611647.7 (the “child”), which is a divisional application of GB1220742.9 (the “parent”) discloses additional subject matter, whether the claims are supported and whether the claims of the child conflict with those of the parent. The application addresses problems whereby the occupant of an aircraft ejection seat may be “out of position” if their head is be to one side or the other of alignment with the seat. When an ejection seat is activated and enters into the wind blast passing over the cockpit a sudden force may be imparted to an occupant's head, resulting in the head being suddenly pushed backwards. When both conditions occur, the occupant is said to be in a “compound position”. The child application relates to an ejection seat having a headrest comprising inflatable side beams and an inflatable head beam, to mitigate against the first and second problems. The invention of the child is characterised by the sequential initiation of the side and head beams. The invention of the parent is characterised by the two-stage deployment of the side beams, including a “capturing” and a “retention” phase.
The Hearing Officer considered whether the parent disclosed only and essentially the operation of side beams comprising a capturing phase of deployment and concluded it did not. Consequently the child was found not to disclose added matter and the claim to be supported. The Hearing Officer considered the scopes of the child and parent claims and found that, whilst overlapping, they did not define the same invention. Consistent with previous Office decisions Optinose and SeeReal the Hearing Officer found that the child is not in conflict with the parent. The application was remitted to the examiner for putting in order for grant.
Full decision O/044/18 
178Kb
