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 >> Wei Xu (Patent) [2022] UKIntelP o64522 (29 July 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o64522.html
Cite as: [2022] UKIntelP o64522

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


Patent decision

BL number
O/645/22
Concerning rights in
GB2108138.5
Hearing Officer
Mr B Buchanan
Decision date
29 July 2022
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Wei Xu
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977, section 1(2)(c)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
O/646/22

Summary

The application is one of nine divisionals which use mobile devices, servers and a wireless network to enable transactions and communication in different environments. The claimed invention defines a system which enables a customer to order from a menu in a restaurant, the order to be communicated to a waiter, and the customer to provide a barcode for the waiter to scan to effect a discount. The issue to be decided was whether the claims defined excluded subject matter. In arguing that the invention provided the requisite technical contribution, the Agent referred to a number of precedents and office decisions and argued that the claimed invention solved a problem using a new arrangement of hardware. The Hearing Officer applied the four stepAerotel/Macrossantest and considered theAT&Tsignposts.The contribution was found not to 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/645/22 PDF document 390Kb


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o64522.html