27 Feb 2008
SINTES AND ANOR V W H HARRIS LIMITED HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-001402
- Citation
- openlaw-58d10f0a_ba56_46ed_a4ae_db73b65f658e.pdf
- Court
- High Court
The court found that the Press publication disclosed the air-intake jacket around the flue (integer (c)) and that the claimed invention in Claims 1 and 10 is a combination of known elements which, given the prior art and common general knowledge, was obvious to a skilled but non-inventive person; accordingly Claims 1 and 10 are invalid for lack of inventive step under s 41(1)(f). Independently, the DVI-165 does not infringe because it lacks an exhaust duct at the top-front of the firebox (integer (b)) and does not have 'fins' as claimed in Claim 10.