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 >> Robert Benjamin Franks (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o02405 (28 January 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o02405.html
Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o2405, [2005] UKIntelP o02405

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


Robert Benjamin Franks [2005] UKIntelP o02405 (28 January 2005)

For the whole decision click here: o02405

Patent decision

BL number
O/024/05
Concerning rights in
GB 0017217.1
Hearing Officer
Mr A Bartlett
Decision date
28 January 2005
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Robert Benjamin Franks
Provisions discussed
PA Patents Act 1977 Section 1(2), 130(7)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application provides a computer system for the online filing of trademark applications. Goods and services are presented for selection from a predetermined list - in a preferred embodiment a 'drop-down' menu - within a user interface. A computer server processes the selected data and a trade mark application is filed, with commensurate benefits of reduced labour and delay.

As well as arguing for consistency with the EPO, TRIPS and previously granted patents, and proposing broader interpretation of 'technical contribution', the crux of Dr Franks argument was that due to the sheer amount of typing required to specify each class of goods and service, e-filing, particularly internationally, was not realistically workable, especially with low-specification equipment. The hearing Officer rejected this, following Fujitsu, stating that neither labour saving advantages nor networked operation were indicative of a technical contribution. Although providing a 'new tool', the computer did not operate in a different way at a technical level.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o02405.html