examples it gave. The ICI patent was not specific, and the House of Lords held that Du Pont’s discovery that another glycol would produce a polymer with the necessary qualities amounted to an inventive step. The selection patent was therefore validly granted. Lord Wilberforce said:

doi:10.4324/9781843142928-39

Chapter

examples it gave. The ICI patent was not specific, and the House of Lords held that Du Pont’s discovery that another glycol would produce a polymer with the necessary qualities amounted to an inventive step. The selection patent was therefore validly granted. Lord Wilberforce said:

Chapter

ABSTRACT

Lord Wilberforce said: The opponents’ case is simply put. The ICI specification gave sufficient directions to enable a chemist to make any of the indicated nine copolyesters. Each and all of these was therefore available to the public. All that is required by the law is that a person of ordinary knowledge and skill in the subject would be able to make the product without the necessity of making further experiments and without taking any new inventive step. This requirement, they claim, was amply satisfied by the ICI specification.