Patent decision
- BL number
- O/121/12
- Concerning rights in
- GB 2402468
- Hearing Officer
- Mr J Elbro
- Decision date
- 16 March 2012
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Winther, Browne and Company Limited and Valor Limited
- Provisions discussed
- Patents Act 1977 Section 72, 75
- Keywords
- Added subject matter, Amendment, Inventive step, Novelty, Opinions and Reviews, Revocation
- Related Decisions
- O/179/09
Summary
The claimant sough revocation of a patent for a heating appliance with a barrier in front of the fire, and a gap between the housing and the barrier to allow air to reach the fire and, in the event of the flue being blocked, allow exhaustion of combustion products. The patent had previously been the subject of an Office Opinion and a Review of that Opinion, which concluded that the patent was invalid.
The hearing officer found that the case turned on whether the claims were restricted to the situation where air could enter simultaneously with combustion products being exhausted. He found that the claims were not so limited and that as a result the patent was invalid for lack of novelty. However, he held that a conditional amendment offered by the defendents suitably restricting the claims to that requirement was allowable and would result in a valid patent.
The hearing officer also found that the fact an Opinion had come to a certain conclusion regarding the same patent did not read across to what he should find, and that the Opinion was not binding on him in any way.
Full decision O/121/12 
88Kb
