Patent decision

BL number

O/422/02

Concerning rights in

GB 9801077.0

Hearing Officer

Mr D J Barford

Decision date

16 October 2002

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

James Shanley

Provisions discussed

PA 1977 sections 1(2)(b), 1(2)(c), 3; EPC articles 52, 56

Keywords

Excluded fields (refused), Inventive step

Related Decisions

None

Summary

Claimed is a demountable partition for buildings characterised by the use of curved frame members. As described, this is in order 'to provide a different appearance'.

Excluded fields Following practice laid down by the UK courts, in particular in Fujitsu Limiteds Application, it was held that since the contribution provided by claims 1 to 3 is not technical but wholly aesthetic, the invention so claimed is excluded. Observed that had Pensions Benefit (an EPO decision) applied, the decision would have been different, since Pensions Benefit rejects the contribution approach and requires only 'technical character'.

Inventive step Held that since the contribution provided by claims 1 to 3 is no more than common general knowledge, there is no inventive step (following Windsurfing International Inc. v Tabur Marine (Great Britain) Ltd). In Pensions Benefit, the claimed improvement was assessed and found to lack inventive step since it did not solve a technical problem or make a technical contribution. Held that, on this basis too, claims 1 to 3 lack inventive step.

Full decision O/422/02 31Kb