Copied from Nevo11. Notices were sent to the appellant prior to the refusal of the applications in which it was stated that according to Patent Law He is not entitled to file a patent application because he is not the owner of the invention, is not the inventor and has not received ownership in one of the ways listed in the law.
- A written reply was submitted and later a meeting was held with the patent attorney who filed the applications in Israel on behalf of the appellant. At the request of the appellant and on his behalf, other parties participated, including foreign patent attorneys and his counsel. On behalf of the Patent Office, the meeting was attended by: the Commissioner of Examiners, two senior examiners and the examiner who signed the notices before refusal.
- Subsequently, the appellant was sent a notice of refusal according to Regulation 45 to the Patents Regulations (Procedures of the Authority, Procedures, Documents and Fees), 5728-1968 (M/5; The Refusal Letter).
- The examiner agreed that one of the Patent Law It is the encouragement of innovation and the discovery of inventions to the public, and the fact that the legislature apparently foresaw the case on the agenda, and it is important to interpret it according to the purpose of the law. However, it was found that one should not "concentrate on the purpose of the law alone and draw conclusions from it without standing on the shelves of the language of the law" (section 4.9). Against this background, the letter was examined to examine questions which, according to the examiner's method, arise for discussion.
The examiner was of the opinion that in light of the dictionary definition of the word "inventor", it is possible to get an interpretation, even if it expands, that this word can also refer to a machine. The examiner noted that he does not identify a possible contradiction between this interpretation and the purposes of the Patent Law, and therefore the machine can be recognized as an inventor (section 6.5 of the refusal letter). The examiner would also have accepted the argument that the appellant, as the owner of the machine, has a right to invent it by virtue of the law (the examiner referred in this matter to an opinion in Jewish law), a condition of being an "owner of the invention". However, it is reasonable to assume that there is an additional cumulative condition according to which the owner of an invention "comes from the power" of the inventor. The examiner determined that since the machine has no legal personality, it is not entitled to rights, it has no obligations, and it is not fit to perform legal actions and has no power to change a legal situation, the owner of an invention cannot "come by virtue of it". The conclusion reached by the examiner is that the owner of the machine cannot be regarded as an inventor within the meaning of the Patent Law and as a person entitled to apply for a patent.
- The appellant asked to be heard before the Registrar of Patents. Two hearings were held before the Registrar (pre-hearing and hearing). In between, the appellant submitted main arguments and an appendix.
On March 15, 2023, the Registrar's decision was given to reject the objection and to order the refusal of the applications for registration (the Registrar's decision or decision).