Category: Intellectual Property

Compurants Ltd (Patent) O/282/11: IPO 11 Aug 2011

IPO The application relates to a computer-controlled interactive food and/or drink ordering system for direct use by a customer where the prices are varied according to demand. It is known for restaurants and bars to vary the prices of food and/or drink. For example, the application refers to a ‘happy hour’ as a time when prices would be varied. The invention provides a system which includes a computer controlled projector that projects prices for food and/or drink items onto the surface of a table, that, when selected by a customer operating an interface device, leads to selected items being ordered at the displayed prices. The prices are varied automatically according to demand.
The Hearing Officer applied the four part test set out in the Aerotel and Macrossan judgment and found the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. She also considered the Court of Appeal decision in Symbian and the decision in ATandT and Cvon and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as being a program for a computer as such and a method for doing business.

Judges:

Mrs S E Chalmers

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o28211, O/282/11, GB 0917357.6

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(2)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458426

Compurants Ltd (Patent) O/284/11: IPO 11 Aug 2011

IPO The application relates to a computer-controlled interactive food and/or drink ordering system that can generate and print the bill at the request of the customer. In conventional restaurants, when requesting a bill, customers usually need to attract a waiter which can take some time to do. There may also be a further delay before the waiter presents the bill. The invention provides a system which includes a computer controlled projector that projects images onto the surface of a table, the images including an image of an icon or button, that, when selected by a customer operating an interface device, causes a message to be sent to an electronic point of sale system (EPOS) to generate and, if desired, print a bill for that customer.
The Hearing Officer applied the four part test set out in the Aerotel and Macrossan judgment and found the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. She also considered the Court of Appeal decision in Symbian and the decision in ATandT and Cvon and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as being a program for a computer as such.

Judges:

Mrs S E Chalmers

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o28411, O/284/11, GB 0917351.9

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(2)(c)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458428

Compurants Ltd (Patent) O/283/11: IPO 11 Aug 2011

IPO The application relates to a computer-controlled interactive food and/or drink ordering system that can prompt a customer to place an order. In conventional restaurants, a waiter will present a customer with a menu and then return a few minutes later to take his order. On some occasions, the customer may not have made up his mind and the waiter may need to return a number of times to prompt the customer before an order is placed which causes an undesirable delay. The application is therefore concerned with encouraging customers to ‘get on with it’ in the context of a ‘one-hour turnaround restaurant’. The invention provides an ordering system which includes a computer controlled projector that projects images of a user interface onto the surface of a table, the images including selection options for ordering. The system is operable to prompt the customer when it has determined that the customer has not interacted with the ordering system for a defined period of time.
The Hearing Officer applied the four part test set out in the Aerotel and Macrossan judgment and found the contribution made by the invention fell solely within excluded matter. She also considered the Court of Appeal decision in Symbian and the decision in ATandT and Cvon and concluded that the contribution did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as being a program for a computer as such.

Judges:

Mrs S E Chalmers

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o28311, O/283/11, GB 0917353.5

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(2)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458427

Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd, Michael Sanders, Kevin Wooley Colin Davidson, Steve Sullivan (Patent): IPO 20 Jul 2011

IPO Application under section 13(1) was filed by Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd to mention Michael Sanders and Kevin Wooley as joint inventors. Colin Davidson and Steve Sullivan were invited to file a counter-statement in relation to the proceedings but failed to do so. Furthermore, they did not respond to an additional letter from the Office advising that the proceedings would be treated as unopposed. As such, the comptroller considered the application to be unopposed and found that Michael Sanders and Kevin Wooley should be mentioned as a joint inventors in the published patent application and granted patent for the invention. The comptroller also directed that an addendum slip be prepared mentioning Michael Sanders and Kevin Wooley as joint inventors for the published patent application and granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o25111

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458407

Shelby, Eastman Chemical Company, Hale, Pecorini, Stewart, Rogers, Gilliam, Cliffton, Crawford, Porter and Connell (Patent): IPO 28 Jun 2011

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Eastman Chemical Company under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Marcus David Shelby should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Wesley Raymond Hale, Thomas Joseph Pecorini, Mark Edward Stewart, Martin Emerson Rogers, Spencer Allen Gilliam, Michael Duane Cliffton, Emmett Dudley Crawford, David Scott Porter and Gary Wayne Connell in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

O/227/11, [2011] UKIntelP o22711

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Rules 2007 10(2)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458365

Shelby, Eastman Chemical Company, Hale, Pecorini, Stewart, Rogers, Gilliam, Cliffton, Crawford, Porter and Connell: IPO 30 Jun 2011

IPO An uncontested application was filed by Eastman Chemical Company under rule 10(2) of the Patents Rules 2007. As a result, it was found that Marcus David Shelby should be mentioned as a joint inventor along with Wesley Raymond Hale, Thomas Joseph Pecorini, Mark Edward Stewart, Martin Emerson Rogers, Spencer Allen Gilliam, Michael Duane Cliffton, Emmett Dudley Crawford, David Scott Porter and Gary Wayne Connell in the granted patent for the invention and directed that an addendum slip mentioning him as a joint inventor be prepared for the granted patent for the invention.

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o23111, O/231/11

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Rules 2007

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458366

Ina Research Inc (Patent): IPO 28 Jun 2011

IPO The application relates to an arrhythmia model animal that enables an evaluation of the QT interval prolongation by a drug. The QT interval is the time period which elapses between the Q wave and the T wave in the electrical cycle of the heart. Some drugs can prolonging the electrocardiogram QT interval and induce proarrhythmia, such as the fatal ventricular arrhythmia called Torsades de pointes (TdP).
The applicant has produced a monkey model, specifically a cynomolgus monkey model, of proarrhythmia in which the atrioventricular node of the heart has been preablated. Unlike previous model animals (e.g. dogs), this monkey model recovers from any arrhythmia which may develop following administration of the drug being tested, such that the same model animal can be used repeatedly.
The Hearing Officer identified the ‘skilled person’ as being a team including, a cardiologist, a pharmacologist with expertise in the cardiotoxic side-effects of drugs, and a veterinary surgeon. After considering the common general knowledge of the skilled team, the Hearing Officer considered the inventive concept to be the use of a cynomolgus monkey model of proarrhythmia in which the atrioventricular node has been preablated in order to evaluate the QT interval prolongation by a drug and not, as argued by the applicant, the use of an animal model of proarrhythmia for evaluating drug-induced long QT syndrome, which animal recovers from arrhythmia, as proposed by the applicant.
The Hearing Officer held that the claimed invention was obvious in light of the common general knowledge of the skilled team and the prior art disclosures involving surgical ablation of the atrioventricular (AV) node in dogs to produce similar models and that elevated levels of atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) or cerebral natriuretic peptide (CNP) are associated with AV block. The obvious course of action of producing a cynomolgus monkey model of proarrhythmia in an analogous manner to that already used in dogs

Judges:

Dr L Cullen

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o22811, GB0806669.8

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(1)(b)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458359

Fireworks Fire Protection Limited v Cooke and Musk (Patent): IPO 10 Jun 2011

IPO Entitlement, Striking out – This is a reference under section 8 in respect of an unpublished patent application. The claimant does not know the precise contents of the application. Its claim is based on the title of the application and its employment of the two named co-inventors and co-applicants. The co-applicants requested that the reference be struck out as it was not possible to dispute entitlement without knowing what the inventive concept was. The hearing officer agreed to strike out those parts of the claim that required a determination of inventorship but did not strike out that part of the entitlement claim which was based on an acceptance of the inventorship of the currently named inventors. The proceedings were however stayed for 4 months pending possible consolidation with other related proceedings.

Judges:

Mr P Thorpe

Citations:

[2011] UKIntelP o20111

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 8 39

Intellectual Property

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.458354