For the whole decision click here: o27508
Summary
The invention related to a panel (a fence panel, roof panel or cladding panel) characterised by a particular pattern of corrugations, which was described as having aesthetic properties. Applying the Aerotel test, the Hearing Officer held that the application related to no more than an aesthetic creation as such. He declined to limit section 1(2)(b) to the fine arts, and rejected the applicant’s arguments that it also gave an improved distribution of glare as being undisclosed and vague, reversibility of the panel as being unclaimed and aesthetic, an illusion of greater width as being aesthetic, and greater ease of manufacture as being vague and unsubstantiated. There was nothing in the application that could be incorporated into the claims so as to remedy the defect, and the Hearing Officer therefore rejected the application.