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 £5, 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 >> Sun Microsystems, Inc (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o05706 (2 March 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o05706.html
Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o05706, [2006] UKIntelP o5706

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

Sun Microsystems, Inc [2006] UKIntelP o05706 (2 March 2006)

For the whole decision click here: o05706

Patent decision

BL number
O/057/06
Concerning rights in
GB2391980
Hearing Officer
Mr S Probert
Decision date
2 March 2006
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Sun Microsystems, Inc
Provisions discussed
PA..1977 Section 1(2)(c). Article 52 EPC.
Keywords
Excluded fields (allowed)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

According to the application, the conventional Java Bytecode instruction set has more than 220 instructions, and there is a significant amount of redundancy (or overlap) between some of these instructions. The invention provides a reduced set of Bytecode instructions that can nevertheless effectively represent the complete set of operations performed by the conventional Java Bytecode instruction set.

The Hearing Officer applied the two-stage test from CFPH, and concluded that the said advance was both new and inventive under the description an invention in the sense of Article 52 (EPC). He accepted that the second step of the two-stage test must involve a consideration of whether the advance involves a technical effect, not least because this is part of the test used by the Patents Court in a number of recent judgments.

Although he accepted that the invention would probably be implemented using a computer program, the Hearing Officer concluded that the invention was not about how that computer program would be structured or how it would be written, but with what the program would be required to do. The program was merely a tool, provided as the most convenient means of implementing the invention.


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o05706.html