Case Comment

Keller and Richter's Patents

citation(s): [1975] R.P.C. 75

copyright 1997 Donald M. Cameron, Aird & Berlis




The Decision

At pp.90-91

"The question, however, remains whether he was right in reaching the conclusion which he did that the invention of the amended claim is not obvious in the light of the disclosure in Biaot, having regard to all the surrounding circumstances. The question of obviousness should be essentially a practical sort of question decided by a practical man, instructed as to the information which was available. As matters stand, if one is questioning the obviousness of an alleged invention, it is necessary to consider the effect of a prior art disclosure which it must be assumed has come to the notice of a worker in the field. It may, in certain circumstances, be legitimate to consider two pieces of prior art disclosure read together. The authorities do, I think, indicate that it may not be altogether immaterial to know that in some particular field of work a very large number of proposals for improvements may have been made and a number of authorities point out how unfair it can be to fasten upon one of a large number of prior art documents and read out of that an invention which is said to be obvious, when you know perfectly well what you are looking for before you start reading."


Return to:

Cameron's IT Law: Home Page; Index

Cameron's Canadian Patent & Trade Secrets Law: Home Page; Index

JurisDiction Home Page