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.
Mr Christopher Floyd QC and Ms Kathryn Pickard (instructed by Mayer Brown Rowe & Mawe LLP) for the Claimants / Part 20 Defendant Mr Richard Arnold QC and Dr Heather Lawrence (instructed by Field Fisher Waterhouse) for the Defendants / Part 20 Claimants Hearing dates: 1-2, 5-9, 12-14, and 20-21 December 2005 ____________________
Conventionally, these applications used a photographic plate, for example an X-ray film, to detect the location or amount of radioactivity contained within a sample. Rushbrooke explains that, instead of a photographic plate, an intensified CCD camera may be used.
iii) Identify the difference(s) between the prior art under consideration and the inventive concept of the claim;
iv) Ask whether the difference(s) would have been obvious or required invention.
Dr Oldenburg accepted that if the starting point was a cooled CCD camera that was maximally sensitive in the 600�700 nm region, then it would have required the skilled person to develop an appropriate scintillating particle to match it, that is to say, to have an emission maximum within that same range.
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.