BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Alan J Venner et al (Patent) [2004] UKIntelP o19304 (6 July 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o19304.html
Cite as: [2004] UKIntelP o19304

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Alan J Venner et al [2004] UKIntelP o19304 (6 July 2004)

For the whole decision click here: o19304

Patent decision

BL number
O/193/04
Concerning rights in
GB0100088.4
Hearing Officer
Mr A Bartlett
Decision date
6 July 2004
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Alan J Venner et al
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977 section 1(2).
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
[2004] UKIntelP o10604

Summary

The application concerns an automated system for reminding clients of tasks requiring action e.g. patent renewals. The system comprises a record such as a database containing information relating to the approach of task due dates for a number of separate clients and a server for receiving task performance instructions. A messaging process is run at regular intervals eg once per month such that an electronic message is sent to a client if (and only if) a due date for that client falls within a set period from the time the messaging process is run. No message is sent to a client if no due date falls within the specified period for that client. Moreover, and this is crucial to the invention, if more than one due date falls in the period for a client, (s)he still only receives one electronic message. That electronic message contains a hypertext link (or other means not requiring user input of a locator) to allow the client to request a page from the server through which they can input instructions to perform each of the tasks that are due.

In refusing the application, the hearing officer decided that the invention related to subject matter that was excluded under section 1(2) and, more specifically, that in substance it was a program for a computer and a method for doing business. Moreover, he found the invention failed to make the technical contribution required to make an otherwise excluded invention patentable. The problems which the invention sought to overcome were ones of human fallibility and the reduction in email traffic produced resulted from instigating administratively convenient processes rather than through any new signalling regime.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2004/o19304.html