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 >> Hitachi, Ltd. (Patent) [2022] UKIntelP o25922 (6 April 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o25922.html
Cite as: [2022] UKIntelP o25922

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


Patent decision

BL number
O/259/22
Concerning rights in
GB1918881.2
Hearing Officer
Mr B Buchanan
Decision date
25 March 2022
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Hitachi, Ltd.
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977, section 1(2)(c)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The claimed invention relates to identifying a medical institution having available resources to execute a predicted diagnosis and treatment flow for a specific patient. The invention consists of a flow prediction model which includes a patient classification prediction model generated by machine learning. Patient state information such as present symptoms are used to determine a patient classification. The patient classification is used to determine the predicted flow, and in conjunction with medical institution resource availability information, suitable institutions are identified and presented at a terminal. The Agents referred to EPC Guidelines for Examination and argued that automated medical diagnosis served a technical purpose. The Hearing Officer applied the four stepAerotel/Macrossantest to determine whether there was a technical contribution and considered theAT&Tsignposts as the Examiner had applied them.The contribution was found not to provide a method of diagnosis or to include machine learning. It did not provide the required technical effect and the claimed invention was found to relate solely to a program for a computer and a method for doing business as such, so the application did not meet the requirements of section 1(2)(c). The application was refused under section 18(3).

Full decisionO/259/22 PDF document 329Kb


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o25922.html