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 >> IGT (Patent) [2008] UKIntelP o06808 (5 March 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o06808.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o6808, [2008] UKIntelP o06808

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


IGT [2008] UKIntelP o06808 (5 March 2008)

For the whole decision click here: o06808

Patent decision

BL number
O/068/08
Concerning rights in
GB 0419337.1
Hearing Officer
Mr R C Kennell
Decision date
5 March 2008
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
IGT
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Section 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
[2007] UKIntelP o18407, [2006] UKIntelP o21106

Summary

The application related to a new way of providing a bonus when playing a gaming machine. Applying the Aerotel test the hearing officer held that, irrespective of whether the invention was claimed as a method of operating a gaming device or as the device itself, the contribution was a way of playing a game in which an award was dependent on the correct prediction or picking by a player of a selected one of a number of component symbols, the award being based on the particular symbol and possibly also on a “modifier”, ie a multiplier whose value could be changed to reflect the player’s predictions. The hearing officer did not accept the applicant’s argument that the contribution was a new mechanism providing a new functionality analogous to the “special exchange” of Aerotel: the invention provided a new way of playing a gaming machine, not a new gaming machine. He therefore held that the invention was excluded as a method for playing a game, although not as a program for a computer, and did not see any basis on which to distinguish the cases in IGT( [2007] EWHC 0954 (refusal upheld on appeal from O/211/06) or to depart from his reasoning in an earlier decision O/184/07 on a similar argument from the applicant. Although it was not necessary to decide the point, he did not consider the contribution to be technical in nature.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o06808.html