IPO Excluded fields (refused) – In a gaming machine, different results were classified into sets producing the same outcome, all results producing the same outcome being in the same set; the results were numbered and stored in a memory with the outcomes; and a processor randomly selected one of the outcomes and one of the numbers producing that outcome and displayed the corresponding result. Applying the four-step test in Aerotel/Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371 the hearing officer held that the contribution of the invention was the provision and setting of a paytable in a way which improved the structuring of outcomes provided to players of gaming machines. The applicant argued that the invention was patentable because it provided a technical solution to a technical problem by enabling a large variety of results to be provided whilst retaining control over the frequency of various levels of outcome (eg large, medium and small awards). However, distinguishing Sun Microsystems O/057/06, the hearing officer held the invention excluded because it failed the third Aerotel/Macrossan step in that it related solely to a computer program and (following the decisions in Acres Gaming O/112/06 and IGT O/211/06) to a method or rule for playing a game. In any case he did not think the contribution of the invention was technical in nature. The application was refused.
Judges:
Mr R C Kennell
Citations:
[2007] UKIntelP o07707, O/077/07, GB 0501495.6
Links:
Statutes:
Intellectual Property
Updated: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.456605