The application relates to a method for assigning a customer service agent to a customer when, for example, the customer contacts a call centre. The Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel test and decided that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. He also considered the decisions in ATandT Knowledge Ventures LP and CVON and HTC Europe Co. Ltd. v Apple Inc. and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as no more than some combination of a business method and a program for a computer as such.
The Hearing Officer also considered the issue of novelty and concluded that the application was novel over the disclosure of US7231034 B1.
Finally, the Hearing Officer considered inventive step and, following the steps set out in Windsurfing (as restated in Pozzoli), concluded that the invention lacked an inventive step over the disclosure of US7231034 B1.
Citations:
[2015] UKIntelP o07115
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.545459
