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 >> 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]
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 329Kb