BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> William Brownlie (Patent) [2010] UKIntelP o33210 (24 September 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o33210.html Cite as: [2010] UKIntelP o33210 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o33210
Summary
The invention related to a prosthetic device for a through-knee or above-knee amputee. It comprised a socket with a gap or cutaway and an adjustable retention means consisting of a length of flexible material with a releasable fastening which in use circumvents at least the proximal edge of the socket so as to overlap the gap or cutaway. Two documents were cited as the closest prior art. The hearing officer found that neither had an adjustable retention means which wrapped entirely around the proximal edge as in the present invention. The claims of the present invention were therefore novel. The hearing officer however found that this feature did not in itself involve an inventive step. The application also disclosed that that gap or cutaway be in the posterior of the socket so as to increase comfort for the wearer when sitting down rather than in the front or side. The cited documents did not include this feature (they had gaps in their anterior or side) and the hearing officer found that a prosthesis with a posterior gap or cutaway and with an adjustable retention means that circumvents the proximal edge of the socket involves an inventive step over the cited prior art. He therefore remitted the application back to the examiner for a consideration of any amendment which incorporated this feature into claim 1. If no amendment was made then the claim 1 would be refused for lacking an inventive step
