IPO The two applications are concerned with networked interactive wagering on the outcomes of events, with particular emphasis on reducing processing delays to a minimum so that in circumstances where prices are changing continuously, a client is provided with the most up-to-date information before placing a bet. In refusing the application, the hearing officer found that the invention was concerned merely with providing an improved transactional process over a computer network and therefore fell within the business method exclusion of section 1(2). The hearing officer went on to find that the invention did not provide a technical contribution required to make an otherwise excluded invention patentable, the invention in both applications merely representing non-technical changes to a business method in order to overcome technical problems.
Judges:
Mr H Jones
Citations:
[2004] UKIntelP o36604, GB0419317.3, GB0226984.3
Links:
Statutes:
Cited by:
Appeal from – CFPH LLC, Patent Applications By PatC 21-Jul-2005
In the context of deciding as to the patentability the use of the description ‘technical’ was ‘a useful servant but a dangerous master’. Peter Prescott QC discussed the importance of being clear as to the meaning of an ‘invention’ saying: ‘does it . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Intellectual Property
Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.456152
