Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Peter Prescott QC and James St Ville (instructed by Redd Solicitors LLP) for the Appellants Mark Platts-Mills QC and Jonathan Hill (instructed by Marks and Clerk Patent Attorneys) for the Respondent Hearing dates: 27 � 29 November 2007 ____________________
i) whether the Patent as granted disclosed matter extending beyond that disclosed in the application;
ii) whether the two sets of amendments were allowable, both substantively because they would not involve the disclosure of additional matter and in the exercise of the Hearing Officer's discretion;
iii) whether the Patent as granted or as proposed to be amended claimed an invention which was new and involved an inventive step; and
i) Was the Hearing Officer correct in concluding that the application does not disclose to the person skilled in the art a portable data storage device for plugging into the USB port of a host computer which is integral, that is to say, it has no cable?
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.