Patent decision

BL number

O/297/02

Concerning rights in

GB 0111205.1

Hearing Officer

Mr D Jerreat

Decision date

19 June 2002

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

David John Anderson

Provisions discussed

PA.1977 sections 15(4), 20 & 24(1)

Keywords

Divisional application, Human Rights, Section 20 period

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The applicant filed a divisional application outside the rule 34 period on a parent application on which there had not been a response to the section 18(3) report or to the letter warning the applicant of refusal of the parent application due to a nil response to the report. The applicants reason for filing the divisional was to better focus the invention of the parent application and the delay was due to product development. The examiner was minded not to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant and to refuse an extension to allow the late filing of the divisional application. He offered the applicant an opportunity to be heard. The hearing was carried out on the papers as requested by the applicant. Counsel for the applicant provided submissions which questioned whether the Patent Office was entitled not to exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998 and whether the Patent Office was exercising its discretion against the applicant unfairly by requiring 'exceptional circumstances' and 'proper diligence'. The hearing officer considered the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 but concluded that the examiner was correct in refusing the late filing of the application under section 15(4) and he refused the divisional application.