The issues
10.By the close of the trial Mr Norris had narrowed Joa’s attack. Joa relied on only one of the cited items of prior art: European Patent Application No. 0685586 (“Coslett”). Coslett was alleged to deprive amended claims 1 and 9 of inventive step and amended claim 9 (but not amended claim 1) of novelty. 11.The issues remaining were: (1)Whether the proposed amended specification resulted in the disclosure of added matter. (2)Whether amended claims 1 and 9 lacked clarity. (3)Whether amended claim 9 lacked novelty over Coslett. (4)Whether amended claims 1 and 9 lacked inventive step over Coslett.
- Introduction
- The Patent
- characterized in that
- The issues
- The skilled person
- The claimed invention in more detail
- The parties’ arguments
- Discussion
- Added matter
- Clarity
- Novelty and inventive step
- Novelty of amended claim 9 in relation to Coslett
- Inventive step of amended claims 1 and 9 over Coslett
- Conclusion