IPO The invention concerned a search engine for searching geo-coded records. The user specifies a distance range as a limitation on the field of search, so that for example, it is possible to search for a pizza store within (say) 5 km of the users address. If no pizza stores are found within 5 km, the search engine automatically extends the distance range until a certain number of pizza stores (eg. 10) are found.
The Hearing Officer applied the two-stage test from CFPH, and concluded that the said advance was not new and inventive under the description an invention in the sense of Article 52 (EPC). Rather, the new and inventive element(s) of the invention were all outside this description, in fields that are not inventions for the purposes of patent law.
The Hearing Officer also considered the policy reasons behind the computer program exclusion, as stated in CFPH. He concluded that since the claims (if granted) would foreclose computer programs (and only computer programs) to the public, then the application could not be granted.
Judges:
Mr S Probert
Citations:
[2005] UKIntelP o33105, GB 2379062
Links:
Citing:
Cited – 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: 19 October 2022; Ref: scu.456504
