Summary
The patent relates to the decontamination and deodourisation of fluids such as air or water by irradiation with ultraviolet light to generate free radicals in the presence of a catalyst. A proposed unconditional amendment was challenged on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step, insufficiency, added matter and lack of clarity. Central to the issue was the contention that the invention lay in maximizing the production of free radicals by generating ozone at the same time as breaking it down using UV light of different wavelengths in the presence of a catalyst wherein the catalyst is arranged adjacent to the UV generating member relative to the direction of flow (the latter words being the subject of the amendment offered). The Hearing Officer found that although the expression “adjacent … relative to the direction of flow” could in isolation be construed in different ways, in the context of the description it could only mean that the components in question were arranged across the direction of flow rather than upstream and downstream. In doing so he applied the principles of construction as summarized in Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) [2005] EWHC 1623 Pat. On this construction, the attack on novelty and inventive step failed and the amended claims were found to be free of any objection regarding clarity, sufficiency or added matter (including an alleged unallowable intermediate generalization), and the patent was allowed to stand as amended. In awarding costs to the defendant, the fact that the claimant had been successful on some preliminary points earlier in the proceedings was taken into account.