terminology was avoided to further test the participants understanding of the information). All participants were able to determine that the UK territory is not covered by the US patent but the situation concerning the EP patent was less well understood. On the front page of the EP patent application document it indicates the application has designated the UK; this can be seen by the letters under the ‘GB’ heading Contracting States’. While three participants assumed that EP ‘Designated patents cover the UK, with comments such as it is European then yes”, others “If were less sure: and think so” and never quite sure about that one “Presumably” “I “I’m actually I’ve looked at all that information before and not been sure.” Several … thought that the EP document did not, either because they thought the UK was not included in the EP patent application, or they were looking for not ‘UK’, ‘GB’: can’t see us there, UK.” (Interviewee 9) “I Third party observations The participants were asked if they thought they could question a patent before it was granted. None knew of the specific opportunity to file third party observations, and many remarked that they would not use it even if they did, they would simply disregard the information if they thought that the patent did not fulfil the patentability requirements: Do you know anything about whether you can question a patent at any point if you “A: doubted it? I: I think that if I saw something like that I would just disregard it rather than wanting to actually file something against it.” (Interviewee 13) Others indicated they wouldn’t use the opportunity because they wouldn’t read patent applications: you read those circulars [such as emails about the UKNSCN digests] then “If maybe you could say knew that and it was obvious’ but I wouldn’t read it ‘I … because I couldn’t care Most scientists would say will wait till the paper … ‘I comes out.’” (Interviewee 4) Notwithstanding this, several participants said they thought such observations would be useful in facilitating expert review in the examination process: do think that needs to be done because scientists will know more than the “I examiner about the field and what has already been done. Yes, for somebody related to that field I think that could be really useful.” (Interviewee 12)
terminology was avoided to further test the participants understanding of the information). All participants were able to determine that the UK territory is not covered by the US patent but the situation concerning the EP patent was less well understood. On the front page of the EP patent application document it indicates the application has designated the UK; this can be seen by the letters ‘GB’ under the heading ‘Designated Contracting States’. While three participants assumed that EP patents cover the UK, with comments such as “If it is European then yes”, others were less sure: “Presumably” and “I think so” and “I’m never quite sure about that one actually … I’ve looked at all that information before and not been sure.” Several thought that the EP document did not, either because they thought the UK was not included in the EP patent application, or they were looking for ‘UK’, not ‘GB’: “I can’t see us there, UK.” (Interviewee 9) Third party observations The participants were asked if they thought they could question a patent before it was granted. None knew of the specific opportunity to file third party observations, and many remarked that they would not use it even if they did, they would simply disregard the information if they thought that the patent did not fulfil the patentability requirements: “A: Do you know anything about whether you can question a patent at any point if you doubted it? I: I think that if I saw something like that I would just disregard it rather than wanting to actually file something against it.” (Interviewee 13) Others indicated they wouldn’t use the opportunity because they wouldn’t read patent applications: “If you read those circulars [such as emails about the UKNSCN digests] then maybe you could say ‘I knew that and it was obvious’ … but I wouldn’t read it because I couldn’t care … Most scientists would say ‘I will wait till the paper comes out.’” (Interviewee 4) Notwithstanding this, several participants said they thought such observations would be useful in facilitating expert review in the examination process: “I do think that needs to be done because scientists will know more than the examiner about the field and what has already been done. Yes, for somebody related to that field I think that could be really useful.” (Interviewee 12)
Anna%20Hescott%20Thesis.docx