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 £1, 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 >> V.B. Medicare PVT. LTD. (Patent) [2010] UKIntelP o23710 (9 July 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o23710.html Cite as: [2010] UKIntelP o23710 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o23710
Summary
The application relates to a process for increasing the efficiency of extraction of 6-acetyl-4,1’,6’ trichlorogalactosucrose (6-acetyl-TGS) and 4,1’,6’ trichloro-galactosucrose (TGS also known as sucralose) from aqueous solution by addition of salt (eg. sodium chloride, sodium acetate, calcium chloride, barium chloride, potassium chloride or potassium acetate) to the reaction mixture containing TGS or 6-acetyl-TGS prior to extraction with organic solvent (eg. ethyl acetate).
The applicant reported that the invention provides a more efficient method for extraction of TGS from aqueous solvent to organic solvent which uses less solvent and also improved removal of polar impurities.
The hearing officer found that the invention as currently claimed was obvious in the light of the liquid extraction technique identified in the prior art when combined with the routine standard laboratory technique of “salting-out” .
The hearing officer noted that the examiner had indicated that suitable amendments to claim 1 could possibly overcome the inventive step objection.
However, in order to do so, the applicant will need to request a discretionary extension of the compliance period, since the extended compliance period ended on 14th May 2010, which will be subject to allowance by the Office.
If the applicant makes a successful request to further extend the compliance period, the application will be remitted to the examiner to allow the applicant an opportunity to file amendments to overcome the outstanding objection.
If the compliance date remains at 14th May 2010, the application will be treated as refused under section 20(1), since the hearing officer found that it did not comply with the Act and Rules on that date.
