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 >> Wei Xu (Patent) [2022] UKIntelP o59322 (19 July 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o59322.html Cite as: [2022] UKIntelP o59322 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
The two inventions each relate to barcode-based transaction systems. The -˜140.1 invention relates to a barcode-based transaction system where a transaction-specific barcode is displayed on a checkout and captured by a user-™s mobile device. The mobile device communicates with a server to confirm that the barcode was generated according to a pre-set rule. Settlement can then be made from information encoded within the barcode. The -˜142.7 invention relates to a barcode-based arrangement of rewarding a commodity recommender when a user purchases a commodity. The arrangement uses mobile devices and various servers to implement a virtual currency rebate to the recommender.
The hearing officer found that the objection regarding -˜140.1 containing added matter was not correct and that an objection to -˜142.7 being unclear with regard to the definition of two servers was incorrect.
The hearing officer rejected the applicant-™s submissions that both inventions comprised a new arrangement of hardware or provided any actual contribution to the security of the transaction systems given the prior disclosure in the applicant-™s own previous patent application. The hearing officer found that the contributions of the inventions did not make a technical contribution and are excluded from patentability as a computer program and/or a business method, as such. The applications were refused under section 18(3).
Full decisionO/593/22 359Kb