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 >> Geoffrey Arthur Dolan (Patent) [2013] UKIntelP o39413 (2 October 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2013/o39413.html Cite as: [2013] UKIntelP o39413 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
The invention concerns composite window frames comprising both opening and non-opening inner frames. Conventionally, the opening and non-opening inner frames are asymmetrical because the opening inner frame is mounted on a further inner frame. The inner frames of the invention are aligned, giving a symmetrical appearance, and this is achieved by having just one openable inner frame which holds the pane and which is mounted directly onto the outer frame. The inner and outer frames are different material.
The prior art documents showed that it was known to have an outer frame of a first material with a fixed inner frame of a second material, or with an openable inner frame of a second material hinged to the outer frame. The difference between the state of the art and the inventive concept was the location of such fixed and openable frames adjacent each other in the outer frame, with their inner edges aligned.
The Hearing Officer considered that the skilled person (someone in the building or window trade with a good knowledge of different windows and window mechanisms) would be well aware of conventional windows where the outer frame contains both opening and fixed inner panes adjacent each other. That person would not be exercising inventiveness by taking the prior art frames, of fixed and opening types, and arranging them in a conventional, adjacent manner. It would be apparent to the skilled person that, if he did this, the inner edges of the fixed and opening inner frames would align - unless he made a special effort to avoid alignment. There was no inventive step and the application was refused.
