Patent decision

BL number

O/0317/25

Concerning rights in

GB2101352.9

Hearing Officer

Dr L Starrs

Decision date

3 April 2025

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Roger William Hall

Provisions discussed

Patents Act 1977 sections 2(1), 14(3) & 14(5)(b)

Keywords

Clarity, Novelty, Sufficiency

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The application relates to a device intended to negate or reduce the torque reaction of a helicopter’s main rotor. The device uses the rotor of an electric motor coupled to a series of bearings to transfer the angular momentum of the rotor to the electric motor housing which is in turn coupled to the stator of the electric motor mounted in some way to the helicopter. The hearing officer considered whether the specification disclosed the invention as claimed clearly and completely enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art. Applying the principles for assessing sufficiency as set out in Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences, the hearing officer found that the person skilled in the art would be incapable of performing the invention as claimed without undue burden based solely on the disclosure of the specification and their common general knowledge. The hearing officer also considered that the claim was anticipated by prior art disclosures. Therefore, the application was found to be insufficient and to lack novelty. Issues raised around the lack of clarity of the claim were not considered in light of the lack of a sufficient disclosure. Having reviewed the application, the hearing officer could find no saving amendment. The application was refused.

Full decision O/0317/25 218Kb