Patent decision

BL number

O/227/09

Concerning rights in

GB0819479.7

Hearing Officer

Dr J E Porter

Decision date

29 July 2009

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Robert Harvey Rines

Provisions discussed

Patents Act 1977 section 15(9) Patents Rules 2007 rules 19, 30, 107, 108

Keywords

Divisional application, Extensions of time, Rectification of irregularities, Section 20 period

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The applicant had filed a Form 52 and fee, requesting a 4 month extension to the compliance period. He then also filed an application claiming divisional status. The Office took the view that the compliance period should be extended by 2 months as-of-right, and so that the divisional application was filed out of time. The applicant argued that a 4 month discretionary extension of time to the compliance period could be granted under rule 108, or in the alternative that it should be granted under rule 107 following unclear official correspondence which amounted to a default, omission or other error on the Office’s part. As a further alternative, the applicant contended that an extension to the period for filing the divisional application should be allowed. The Hearing Officer found that rule 108 did not allow for a 4 month extension to the compliance period on the basis of a single Form 52 and fee, and that the period should be extended by 2 months only. He found no basis for exercising discretion to extend the compliance period under rule 107. He also refused to allow the late filing of the divisional application - having not been provided with sufficient grounds on which properly to exercise discretion favourably. The onus was on the applicant to show that the circumstances were exceptional and that he had been properly diligent - and some very brief statements about the applicant’s ill health and the general difficulties caused by it did not discharge that onus.

Full decision O/227/09 107Kb