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 >> Senergy Holdings Limited (Patent) [2015] UKIntelP o05715 (4 February 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2015/o05715.html Cite as: [2015] UKIntelP o05715, [2015] UKIntelP o5715 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
The application relates to a method of computationally modelling production from a subterranean region with reference to a wellbore and surrounding formation, such as may be encountered in oil and gas exploration and production. The modelling typically provides simulations which predict the flow of oil, water and/or gas flow from a formation, using a viscous resistance parameter. The examiner concluded that the invention did not meet the requirements of section 1(2) predominantly on the grounds of the actual contribution being a computer program.
The hearing officer applied and referenced Aerotel/Macrossan, Symbian and Halliburton. He found that the contribution did not lie in a mental act or mathematical method. He found that the contribution lay in a computer program which did not perform a task which was both specific and external to the computer. Hence, it was found that, without further amendment of the claims, the application was excluded, since the actual contribution was not technical in nature.
As parts of the application include description in the context of a design process and evaluating optimum well geometry, the hearing officer found that there was scope for the actual contribution to be redefined as a method of design. This would provide a technical actual contribution as in Halliburton. Hence, the decision identifies the possibility of an amendment, which would then be subject to further processing under section 18.
