BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Dell Products L.P. (Patent) [2009] UKIntelP o21209 (17 July 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o21209.html Cite as: [2009] UKIntelP o21209 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o21209
Summary
Parent application 0524300.1 and divisional application 0712055.3 both related to a router with wireless local area network (LAN) components and cellular wireless wide area network (WAN) components. The examiner had objected to the inventions of both applications as lacking an inventive step. The applicant filed a number of main and auxiliary requests on both applications for consideration at the hearing. The parent application involved a router which included a detachable wireless cellular (i.e. a mobile phone) which enabled communication with the cellular WAN when connected to the router and enabled voice communication when detached from the router. The hearing officer found this invention to be inventive over the closest prior art cited, but identified an argument which had not previously been considered and so referred the case back to the examiner for consideration of that argument. The divisional application related to a router with a VoIP module. Various auxiliary requests added a Quality of Service (QoS) module and features relating to the choice and use of a particular SIM into the router. The hearing officer found all the claims of the various requests to lack an inventive step over the closest prior art and the common general knowledge of the person skilled in the art at the priority date of the application in suit. He therefore refused the divisional application.
