Case No. IP-2016-000202

118.The first question is whether the Tap Bank achieves substantially the same result in substantially the same way as the inventive concept. 119.Teleste argued that the Tap Bank may achieve substantially the same result but it does not do so in substantially the same way. This was because there was no circuitry in the Tap Bank base unit. As I have said, in my view this is not relevant to how the result of the inventive concept is achieved. 120.The Tap Bank exploits the inventive concept in the same way, by allowing at least the directional coupler (in fact several) to be added and removed without physically disturbing the group of signal outputs. It achieves substantially the same result in that maintenance is made easier and cheaper. I accept that the fact that a variant provides the advantage promised by the patent in suit cannot by itself be decisive because it might to so without exploiting the inventive concept in substantially the same way, or even at all. But in this case the advantage is achieved by using the inventive concept in substantially the same way as revealed in the Patent. The answer to the first question is yes. Improver