BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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 >> Yi Tang (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o27206 (28 September 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o27206.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o27206 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o27206
Summary
The invention provided a system which improved the voice recognition-based scheduling and management of business appointments. Applying the test in CFPH LLP’s Application [2005] EWHC 1589, [2206] RPC 5 and noting that the invention was implemented by standard hardware and data-processing techniques using known voice response systems, the hearing officer considered that the advance lay in the application of natural language voice techniques the management of a business appointments and reservations so as to provide a more efficient and user-friendly system.
On the business method exclusion, the hearing officer did not accept that making a business appointment did not of itself involve a business transaction, but made no decision under this head in the absence of argument on Macrossan’s Application [2006] EWHC 705 (although still considering that the invention was distinguishable from Macrossan as being more a way of conducting an entire business than a mere tool). However, the hearing officer held that the invention was excluded as relating to a computer program (since the improvements were essentially brought about by a database searching algorithm) and as a mental act (since it went through the routine of presenting options and asking questions which replicated what a human receptionist would do).
In view of these findings, the hearing officer did not consider it necessary to consider outstanding objections obviousness and plurality of invention and refused the application.
