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 >> Google LLC (Patent) [2022] UKIntelP o82922 (28 September 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o82922.html
Cite as: [2022] UKIntelP o82922

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


Patent decision

BL number
O/829/22
Hearing Officer
Dr L Cullen
Decision date
26 September 2022
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Google LLC
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977 - section 1(2)(c); section 1(2)(d),
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

This invention relates to a method for providing a reply to an electronic communication where a number of possibilities for the reply content are selected for presentation via a computing device for inclusion in the reply to the electronic communication-. selectingand/or

The Hearing Officer, applying the four-step Aerotel test, found that the contribution made by the application was an improved communication process between two users, the alleged improvement lying in a faster and more accurate process for determining and presenting to a user two alternative replies. Considering this contribution in light of the AT&T signposts as modified in HTC, the hearing officer found that this contribution was not technical in nature.

The Hearing officer also considered this that preparing and presenting alternative replies to communications based on features of those communications and subsequently sending a selected one of the alternatives is, essentially, an administrative act and as such it falls within the business method exclusion

As the application was found not to meet the requirements of sections 1(2)(c) of the Act, it was refused under section 18(3) of the Act.

Full decisionO/829/22 PDF document 338Kb


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o82922.html