of the P is the same as [0055] of the PA save that the frame (82) is first called a support member and then a frame, and figures 17 and 18 are the same. Purvis QC for Nicocigs submitted that the consequence of the change in wording from the PA to the P was a dramatic change in the nature of the invention. He had a number of separate points. he submitted that an important teaching of the PA was the use of an integrally formed shell to house the battery assembly and the atomiser assembly, and that the atomiser in that shell fitted with the cigarette bottle assembly so as to provide a two piece device which solved one of the problems in the art which it had identified. This was referred to as the point. ‘shell’ Purvis submitted that the P presented a different solution to this problem and it did so by using the word to describe the outer casing of the ‘shell’ whole of the device (battery assembly, atomiser assembly and liquid storage component) and providing for it to have a detachable end (with the liquid storage component at this end), instead of using the word to describe ‘shell’ that part of the device containing just the battery assembly and atomiser assembly and into which fits the cigarette bottle assembly. regard to the word there was argument as to whether it had a ‘shell’ single meaning in both the PA and the P and, in particular, whether it applied only to a one part device or could it legitimately be applied to a two or more part device? I considered the debate as rather arid. The word shell can properly be applied to a single or multiple part device and whether it does so must be determined from the context. If it is described as integrally formed, it is in one piece; if it is described as being comprised of two pieces which fit together, each of which may properly called a shell, then it is a
of the P is the same as [0055] of the PA save that the frame (82) is first called a support member and then a frame, and figures 17 and 18 are the same. Purvis QC for Nicocigs submitted that the consequence of the change in wording from the PA to the P was a dramatic change in the nature of the invention. He had a number of separate points. he submitted that an important teaching of the PA was the use of an integrally formed shell to house the battery assembly and the atomiser assembly, and that the atomiser in that shell fitted with the cigarette bottle assembly so as to provide a two piece device which solved one of the problems in the art which it had identified. This was referred to as the ‘shell’ point. Purvis submitted that the P presented a different solution to this problem and it did so by using the word ‘shell’ to describe the outer casing of the whole of the device (battery assembly, atomiser assembly and liquid storage component) and providing for it to have a detachable end (with the liquid storage component at this end), instead of using the word ‘shell’ to describe that part of the device containing just the battery assembly and atomiser assembly and into which fits the cigarette bottle assembly. regard to the word ‘shell’ there was argument as to whether it had a single meaning in both the PA and the P and, in particular, whether it applied only to a one part device or could it legitimately be applied to a two or more part device? I considered the debate as rather arid. The word shell can properly be applied to a single or multiple part device and whether it does so must be determined from the context. If it is described as integrally formed, it is in one piece; if it is described as being comprised of two pieces which fit together, each of which may properly called a shell, then it is a