IPO All three applications (which were unrelated) related to ways of determining the awards and bonuses to be paid to players of gaming machines, and were refused. Applying the four-step Aerotel/Macrossan test in the light of the recent judgments in Oneida Indian Nation and IGT( [2007] EWHC 0954, 1341) the hearing officer held that, irrespective of whether it was implemented in software, the contribution in each case was on all fours with the decision in IGT and was concerned solely with the gameplay on the machine. The contributions therefore fell within the excluded area of a scheme, rule or method for playing a game, and it was not necessary to consider whe ther they were technical in nature. The hearing officer had some doubt about whether the inventions related solely to a computer program in the light of Oneida and IGT. He made no decision on whether they were excluded as business methods notwithstanding the decision in Oneida finding certain claims to gaming machines excluded on this ground.
Judges:
Mr R C Kennell
Citations:
[2007] UKIntelP o18407, O/184/07
Links:
Statutes:
Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.456720
