- BL number
- O/112/17
- Concerning rights in
- GB 1204489.7
- Hearing Officer
- Dr J Houlihan
- Decision date
- 13 March 2017
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Theresa Jane Pope & Hayley Marie Leete
- Provisions discussed
- Section 1(1)(b)
- Keywords
- Inventive step
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The application relates to a perspiration shield for the underarm. It comprises an absorbent pad and a barrier layer, both of which are in the shape of an acute isosceles triangle. The application suggests that such a pad is particularly useful for people who experience excessive sweating and/or for whom conventional chemically-based deodorants might cause irritation. The main claim was directed to the structure of the pad but also included a phrase directed to its use.
The Hearing Officer construed the main claim as being directed to a product – the perspiration shield – which was suitable for the use indicated. Applying the Windsurfer/Pozzoli test he found that it was not inventive for two reasons. Firstly, on the basis of a single prior art document that disclosed a similar perspiration shield which was in the shape of an acute triangle. Referring to Abbott Laboratories Ltd v Evysio Medical Devices ULC (EWHC [2008] Pat 800), the Hearing Officer considered that the differences between that prior art document and the inventive concept underlying the main claim were arbitrary. Secondly, he found the inventive concept was obvious based on the combination of two prior art documents in the same field. He found that the dependent claims related to conventional features or parameters and also that the inventive concept of the omnibus claim was no different to that of the main claim. As such, the remaining claims were also considered to lack an inventive step. The application was refused.