David Cavdarovski
[2013] APO 60
•25 November 2013
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
David Cavdarovski [2013] APO 60
Innovation Patent: 2013100142
Title:A Thong Sandal Saver Clip
Patentee: David Cavdarovski
Delegate: Dr S.D. Barker
Decision Date: 25 November 2013
Hearing Date: Written submissions were due by 11 November 2013, but were not filed
Catchwords: PATENTS – re-examination – lack of novelty and innovative step – patent revoked
Representation: Patent applicant: Michael Taylor
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Innovation Patent: 2013100142
Title:A Thong Sandal Saver Clip
Patentee: David Cavdarovski
Date of Decision: 25 November 2013
DECISION
I revoke innovation patent 2013100142.
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Commissioner issued a re-examination report on 20 June 2013 in relation to innovation patent 2013100142. The report stated that all claims lacked novelty (and innovative step) in the light of AU 2012100751 (D1). The report stated that the patentee had two months to respond, otherwise proceedings for revocation would be initiated. As no response was filed, a Senior Examiner informed the patentee that a hearing would be conducted based on written submissions, and the patentee was allowed one month to file submissions or propose amendments. No submissions or amendments were filed.
Novelty
The re-examination report refers specifically to Figures 17A, 17B and 17C of D1. These Figures show a device that can be used to repair a thong. The device has a flange attached to a tubular section. The tubular section has a projecting wall that can retain the end of a thong strap. There is a slot running along the device. These are the features of claim 1 of the present innovation patent. I am satisfied that claim 1 is not novel in the light of D1.
The features that are included in claims 2 to 5 relate to the shape of the flange, the location of tubular section within the flange, the nature of the slot and the dimensions of the device relative to its intended use. All of these features are apparent in D1.
All of claims 1 to 5 lack novelty in the light of D1.
Innovative step
D1 discloses a device having all of the features of the claims, for the same use. It follows that there is no innovative step.
Conclusion
The claims lack novelty and innovative step in the light of D1. The patentee has not proposed any amendments, and has not provided any submissions for consideration. I conclude that the patentee has lost interest in the innovation patent. Consequently there are no reasonable prospects that amendments would be filed, so I do not consider it necessary to consider whether to direct amendments. I will revoke the innovation patent.
Dr S.D. Barker
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
0
0
0