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!



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 >> Adobe Systems Inc. (Patent) [2008] UKIntelP o12408 (30 April 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o12408.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o12408

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


Adobe Systems Inc. [2008] UKIntelP o12408 (30 April 2008)

For the whole decision click here: o12408

Patent decision

BL number
O/124/08
Concerning rights in
GB 0518994.9
Hearing Officer
Mr R C Kennell
Decision date
30 April 2008
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Adobe Systems Inc.
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Section 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application related to the addition to a first version of a stock item (such as a photograph), after retrieval from a hosting server, of identifier metadata in order to facilitate retrieval of further versions of the content for use in graphic design. Applying the Aerotel test the hearing officer considered that, since metadata were already present on the items stored on the server, the contribution did not, as the applicant alleged, lie in a realisation that that storage space on the server could be saved by adding metadata after retrieval of the first version rather than whilst it was stored on the server. The hearing officer found the contribution to be a better program for searching databases, and that any realisation that metadata could be added after retrieval was part of the program design rather than a separable technical advance upon which the program design was based. Irrespective of whether he needed to consider the point the hearing officer did not consider the contribution to be technical in nature. He therefore refused the application as relating to a computer program (but not to a business method) as such.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o12408.html