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!



BAILII [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 >> Smith International Inc. (Patent) [2008] UKIntelP o19108 (3 July 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o19108.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o19108

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Smith International Inc. [2008] UKIntelP o19108 (3 July 2008)

For the whole decision click here: o19108

Patent decision

BL number
O/191/08
Concerning rights in
GB0600581.3
Hearing Officer
Mr H Jones
Decision date
3 July 2008
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Smith International Inc.
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Sections 1(1)(b) & 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (allowed), Inventive step
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The invention related to a method of manufacturing a drill bit by designing the drill bit and then manufacturing it in accordance with the design. Only the design step were described or claimed in any detail: this involved simulating the performance of the drill bit whilst drilling through an earth formation, displaying the result graphically, varying a design parameter of the drill bit, and repeating the process until a performance characteristic was optimised. Following Halliburton and Cappellini/Bloomberg, the hearing officer held that this was patentable.

The hearing officer then applied the test laid down in Aerotel / Macrossan, and determined that the step involved in three of the four independent claims, that the adjustment was in accordance with the graphical display, was inventive. Claim 35 was held to lack this feature, and to be obvious in the light of the prior art cited.

The application was therefore remitted to the examiner for further amendment.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o19108.html