Decision Nº O/336/08 from Intellectual Property Office - (Patent decisions), 22 December 2008
| Judge | Mr R C Kennell |
| Court | Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom) |
| Date | 22 December 2008 |
| Administrative Decision Number | O/336/08 |
| Patent Number | GB0502802.2 |
| Parties | Geoffrey Robinson |
BL O/336/08
22 December 2008
APPLICANT Geoffrey Robinson
ISSUE Whether patent application number GB
0502802.2 complies with sections 1(1(a),
1(2)(a) and 14(3)
HEARING OFFICER
R C Kennell
DECISION
Background
1 This application is directed to improving the accuracy of calculation of the velocity
of a remote object by means of Doppler-shifted electromagnetic radiation. It was
filed on 11 February 2005 with no claim to any earlier priority date, and was
published on 23 August 2006 under serial no. GB 2423430 A.
2 Despite a substantial exchange of correspondence and amendment to the
claims, Mr Robinson has not persuaded the examiner that the invention is either
“capable of industrial application” as required by section 1(1)(c) of the 1977 Act or
disclosed “in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough to be
performed by a person skilled in the art” as required by section 14(3). (Section 4
of the Act states that an invention is capable of industrial application “if it can be
made or used in any kind of industry, including agriculture”.) The basis of the
examiner’s objection under sections 1(1) and 14(3) is that the invention cannot be
made or used or sufficiently disclosed for its performance to be possible because
it contravenes a well-established scientific theory, namely Einstein’s theory of
special relativity. Mr Robinson on the other hand believes that his invention is
complementary to, rather than in conflict with, that theory.
3 In his letter of 11 November 2008, Mr Robinson has opted to have the matter
decided on the basis of the papers on file rather than to present his arguments at
a hearing. In reaching my decision I have read and taken account of all the
documents which have been cited in the correspondence, including those which
Mr Robinson has submitted with the above letter and with a subsequent e-mail on
11 December 2008; I have listed all these documents in the Annex to this
decision. I am grateful to both Mr Robinson and the examiner (Dr E Plummer) for
Intellectual Property Office is an operating name of the Patent Office
To continue reading
Request your trial