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 >> Cyacomb Ltd (Patent) [2022] UKIntelP o88622 (17 October 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o88622.html Cite as: [2022] UKIntelP o88622 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
This invention is in the field of management of confidential data and concerns several aspects of the handling of a representative database generated from a database comprising secure data elements
The Hearing Officer (HO), applying the four-step Aerotel test, found that the alleged contribution was a method of processing a data request to a secure database made up of secure elements that are secure representations of fragments of confidential data stored within the database. The output of the processing of the management request is an identified portion of the secure data which is sent to the requesting entity such that the secure elements can be used to detect the presence of specific data elements without having access to the original data elements. The secure database is created prior to the receipt of the data request.-
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 HO also considered the contribution in relation to other closely related independent claims on file. These define processes necessary for the maintenance or administration of the representation database (referred to by claim 1) and relate to third party requests to alter the representation database (by data addition in claim 28 or by updating the database in claim 29). The alleged contribution, insofar as these claims are concerned, was found to be a method to add to or maintain a representation database. Considering this contribution in light of the AT&T signposts as modified in HTC, the HO determined that it was not technical in nature. As the application as claimed 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/886/22 
361Kb
