The Patent
6.The application for the Patent was filed on 20 January 2004. There is no claim to a priority date. 7.The specification begins by describing a mobile warning device for road traffic that was known in the art. It is a board to be mounted on vehicles, the board having spotlights arranged in a flat pattern to produce images. The images include directional arrows to tell road users to change lane and warning crosses to indicate that the lane is closed. The specification continues: “In line with traffic regulations, all these patterns are generated in one single colour and as flashing lights. The main colour used is yellow.” 8.The skilled person would notice an oddity about this. Crosses to signal a lane closure, used in fixed traffic warning devices such as those on overhead gantries, are red in the UK, not yellow. The UK regulations require that the crosses are in constant (i.e. not flashing) light and that they are red. 9.I was told that flashing arrows and crosses in yellow are consistent with the German regulations. It seems likely that the specification is derived from a draft created in Germany, although the Patent has no German or any other priority application. I was also told that there is no equivalent patent in force in Germany, but that makes no difference to this dispute. 10.The specification says more about the spotlights used in the prior art devices: “The individual spotlights that are configured as flashing lights can be halogen lights or LED lights. There are two different designs. The individual LEDs can be furnished with yellow lenses, but they can also emit a yellow light and have transparent, clear lenses.” 11.There follows the consistory section, essentially setting out claim 1. The claim having been set out, the characterizing portion is summarised in the specification this way: “The warning cross is shown in an additional colour to the flashing directional arrows, and shines constantly.” 12.The specification explains the advantage of this arrangement: “A mobile warning device will cause an increased level of attention when implemented in this way, because it has an unusual – and thus unexpected – form and colour. This is due to the fact that the (preferably red) warning crosses in constant light have not been mounted on vehicles. If a warning cross shining in an unfamiliar colour now appears on a construction vehicle, trailer or a similar vehicle, it will warn the road user of a particularly dangerous situation, namely of the closing off of a lane or carriageway, in a very emphatic way.” 13.Preferred embodiments are then explained, including: “ … an additional spotlight attached next to each end point of the cross and these four additional spotlights emit a flashing red light by pairs upon activation of the red warning cross.” 14.There follows a passage which appears to acknowledge UK practice: “The red diagonal cross in connection with the fourfold intermittent flashing system is already familiar to the road users from sign gantries. Usually, it indicates the closing of a lane. When using these signals for mobile warning devices, at first an unfamiliar effect is created that particularly increases the attention level of the road users. At the same time, they receive information which they are familiar with, because the diagonal red cross with the additional flashing lights is a system that is already know from stationary arrangements.”