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 >> Dr Harry Nduka (Patent) [2011] UKIntelP o36511 (25 October 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2011/o36511.html
Cite as: [2011] UKIntelP o36511

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


Dr Harry Nduka [2011] UKIntelP o36511 (25 October 2011)

For the whole decision click here: o36511

Patent decision

BL number
O/365/11
Concerning rights in
GB0818371.7
Hearing Officer
Rowena Dinham
Decision date
25 October 2011
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Dr Harry Nduka
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977 Sections 1(1)(a), 1(1)(b) and 14(5)(c)
Keywords
Inventive step, Novelty, Support
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application relates to a device for controlling incontinence using a bladder pressure sensor and a muscle stimulator. The specification provides a single embodiment of a “Y” shaped device consisting of a pressure sensor gauge and an electrode each forming one arm of the “Y”, and an anchor portion that forms the foot of the “Y”. A guide wire is attached at one end to the electrode and in use is intended to be attached at the opposite end to the fast twitch sphincter muscle. A remote control is also provided to allow deactivation of the electrode and voluntary voiding of the bladder by the user. The claims, which were filed later, define bladder sphincter muscle-stimulating devices in more general terms, without any of the characterising features disclosed in the description.

The hearing officer found that the claims were unduly broad in scope and unsupported as they encompassed devices that are outside of the scope of the invention as filed. These broad claims also lacked novelty in view of three documents cited by the examiner.

As the claims lacked support, the hearing officer considered the novelty of the single specific embodiment that was disclosed in the specification, and found that should the claims be limited to this embodiment then they would be novel over the cited documents, and may be non-obvious to the skilled man. The application was therefore remitted to the examiner in order to give the applicant the opportunity to file suitable amendments.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2011/o36511.html