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 >> Orange Personal Communications Services Limited (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o19206 (14 July 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o19206.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o19206 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o19206
Summary
The application is concerned with a computer-implemented method of determining the tariff or rating data for use in pricing a call made from a mobile telephone. The method involves looking up the destination number on a stored subscriber record whilst the call is in progress and using this information to determine the tariff to be charged. The method is of particular use in services where discounted rates are applied in respect of certain destination numbers or 'addresses' nominated by the subscriber.
The Hearing Officer held that the correct approach was the one originally formulated by Mr Peter Prescott QC in CFPH LLC's Application [2006] RPC 5 and broadly endorsed by a number of subsequent High Court judgments, namely, identify the contribution and ask whether it falls solely within the excluded areas. The Hearing Officer held that a method for determining the tariff to be charged for a telephone call was caught by the business method exclusion. Whilst the timing of this determination might indeed lead to increased speed and efficiency in the use of computer processing resources, these flowed from the decision as to when to carry out the call rating. She therefore rejected a submission that there was a technical effect in using less storage space and fewer computer processing resources to carry out the rating process. The Hearing Officer also held that the substance of the claims related to a computer program as such.
