Category: Intellectual Property

Everest Software Inc (Patent): IPO 18 Jan 2008

Excluded fields (refused) – The application relates to apparatus and a method for processing payments between a business software system and a payment processor. More specifically it provides an intermediate payment processor that interfaces between the business system software and the payment processors and permits a business software system to be upgraded to support additional payment processors without the need to change the business software itself.
Applying the four step test set out in Aerotel/Macrossan, the hearing officer found that the contribution made by the invention fell solely within the meaning of a program for a computer and the application was refused.

Judges:

Mr P Thorpe

Citations:

[2008] UKIntelP o01408, O/014/08

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(2)

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.456901

Apputharai Chandrakumar and Kulanathan Kularajan (Patent): IPO 7 Dec 2007

IPO The invention computerised the playing of ‘chit fund’ games (traditional in SE Asia, in which a specified number of subscribers contribute to a fund on a number of subscription dates and then make bids for the total fund) to make them more flexible and attractive, eg for business purposes. Amongst other things, computerisation allowed a creditworthiness check on subscribers to be made at a remote server. Applying the test in Aerotel [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 and refusing the application, the hearing officer held that the contribution was not a new combination of hardware, but was a new way of playing a game relying on the programming of standard computer hardware items. Nothing in the contribution was not excluded as a computer program, a method of playing a game or a business method.

Citations:

[2007] UKIntelP o35907, O/359/07

Links:

Bailii

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.456873

Hideaki Koiwai (Patent): IPO 31 Dec 2007

IPO The patent application relates to a golf putter having a measurement scale and sighting means to estimate the distance to the hole. The examiner had objected that new subject matter had been added contrary to section 76, that the invention lacked inventive step in the light of four prior specifications and that it was excluded from patentability. The hearing officer considered the added subject matter issue, decided at the hearing new subject matter had been added and accepted a form of claim with the added subject matter removed, for consideration of the other issues. He found the resulting claim to lack inventive step in the light of the prior art. With the claim before him invalidated he was unable to make a determination as to the excluded matter point but considered that as long as any eventual claim was distinguished from the prior art by physical features it should not be excluded. The patent application was remitted to the examiner for further processing.

Judges:

Mr P Marchant

Citations:

[2007] UKIntelP o37307, GB0512872.3

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Patents Act 1977 1(1) 1(2) 76

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.456881

Ingenico (UK) Limited and Pendawell 2007 Limited (Patent): IPO 6 Nov 2007

IPO The claims relate to an electronic payment method and the Claimant alleged that they are excluded from patentability as not being an invention, are not novel, and lack an inventive step. The hearing officer found that the claims were both novel and inventive but found that all the claims of the patent are excluded from patentability. He therefore ordered the patent to be revoked in accordance with Section 72(1) of the Patents Act 1977

Judges:

P Back

Citations:

GB2360867B, [2007] UKIntelP o33107, O/331/07

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.456852

Cantor Index Llc (Patent): IPO 19 Oct 2007

The invention relates to a system for the customization of betting odds such that the person placing a bet can specify the overall stake and odds they would like to benefit and a participant in the event and the system selects other participants and how the stake should be divided amongst all the selected participants so that if any of them win, the punter wins at approximately his specified odds. The applicants claimed that a technical contribution was provided by the reduction in network traffic that resulted from the method of calculating betting odds the invention utilized. The hearing officer applied the four step test set out in the Aerotel and Macrossan judgment. He decided that the hardware was entirely conventional and that the contribution was not in the field of communication but fell solely in the business method and computer program exclusions.

Citations:

[2007] UKIntelP o30807

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Intellectual Property

Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.456811