Extrait intéressant de décision du Commissaire sur utilité

Voir:  Re Immunex Corporation Patent Application No. 583,988
 
[74] Moreover, Consolboard Inc. v. MacMillan Bloedel (Saskatchewan) Ltd. (1981), 56 C.P.R. (2d) 145 (S.C.C.) informs us that, so long as utility would be apparent to the skilled person, neither the description nor the claims need explicitly mention the utility of a novel product claimed as such.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s