Patent decision

BL number

O/294/15

Concerning rights in

GB1016621.3

Hearing Officer

Dr J E Porter

Decision date

23 June 2015

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Duncan James Parfitt

Provisions discussed

Patents Act 1977 section 14(3)

Keywords

Sufficiency

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The invention is entitled “Windmill II” and relates to a device for turning air movement into rotation using a feature referred to as “scrolling vanes”. The applicant explained that each vane is intended to be formed as a scroll and, by the term “scrolling”, that he meant that the vanes are designed to roll and unroll in response to the wind. In his view, this would lead to improved rotational motion of the windmill. The Hearing Officer held that, on the basis of the very brief description and two drawings, the skilled man would not be able to understand what the applicant had in mind in relation to “scrolling vanes”. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer was not convinced that there was disclosure of a device which could, as claimed, transform air movement into rotation. The application was refused for insufficient disclosure.

Full decision O/294/15 185Kb