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!



BAILII [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 >> Kim Lesley Ridgeway (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o00506 (6 January 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o00506.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o00506, [2006] UKIntelP o506

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Kim Lesley Ridgeway [2006] UKIntelP o00506 (6 January 2006)

For the whole decision click here: o00506

Patent decision

BL number
O/005/06
Concerning rights in
GB0124754.3
Hearing Officer
Mr B Westerman
Decision date
6 January 2006
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Kim Lesley Ridgeway
Provisions discussed
PA.1977 Sections 1(1) & 1(2)
Keywords
Inventive step
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application related to a mathematical teaching and learning aid including rods sized and arranged to be juxtaposed to demonstrate arithmetic functions. Integers on the rods are represented by areas of the rods demarcated by grooves. The prior art cited by the examiner included six documents said to show the same principle, but not having grooves as demarcations. One JP document, and common general knowledge, was relied upon to show that the use of grooves would be obvious. Any distinction was aid to be an aesthetic one, or to do with presentation of information.

The hearing officer found that the claims of the application were obvious in the light of two of the original six documents, when considered in the light of general knowledge and/or the JP document. He rejected to objection based upon the other four documents, none of which clearly showed markings. He found that the construction was not an aesthetic creation as such, and should not be refused on the ground of being presentation of information as such. He found no saving amendment possible on the information in the application as filed.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o00506.html