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 >> Jest Technologies PTY Limited (Patent) [2011] UKIntelP o28911 (17 August 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2011/o28911.html Cite as: [2011] UKIntelP o28911 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o28911
Summary
The invention concerns sportswear garments which are designed to apply compression to particular areas of the body. This is said to increase circulation, reduce the likelihood of certain injuries, and assist in the recovery from injuries. In particular, the invention concerns a compression garment in which muscle groups are isolated from one another by the provision of panels which are joined by seams following the contour of the surface anatomy of the muscle groups. The garment is designed to provide a compression gradient to the muscles.
The independent claims were amended to refer to the fact that “each garment panel provides targeted gradient compression to said muscle groups”. The Hearing Officer held that the amended claims were sufficiently clear in meaning, and in particular it was clear that each panel is designed to target compression on a muscle group, and that there is a compression gradient across each panel. Once clarified, he held that the phrase did not add matter to the specification of the application as filed.
The Hearing Officer went on to find that the independent claims were novel in light of a relevant earlier EP application, which discloses a compression sporting garment with panels, each of which is shaped specifically for a muscle area which it encloses. But he found the independent claims were lacking in inventive step in light of that earlier EP application and the disclosure in other documents relating to compression gradients in tensioned sporting garments.
The application was refused under section 18(3).
