IPO The invention automated the purely conversational exchange of names between two people to establish mutual contacts by comparing lists of contact entries stored in devices such as mobile telephones and displaying to a user only those contacts determined to be common; neither user would therefore have access to all of the other’s contacts. The comparison preferably involved the application of a one-way function such as a hash key to the contacts data so that only a representation of the data, not the data itself, would be communicated outside the device.
Applying the Aerotel test and refusing the applications as relating to computer programs as such, the hearing officer held that the contribution was solely the effect of running a program and did not accept that there was a technical effect by reason of improved data security. He did not accept that a manual equivalent involving the use of a trusted third party to compare the lists was within the scope of the invention (an argument advanced by the applicant to show that the contribution could not relate solely to a computer program), but if it was he held that it was not technical in nature even if it passed the third Aerotel step.
Citations:
[2008] UKIntelP o26008
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Intellectual Property
Updated: 20 October 2022; Ref: scu.457161