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!
 |
[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 >> Makor Issues and Rights Limited (Patent) [2007] UKIntelP o18107 (27 June 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o18107.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o18107 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o18107
Summary
The claims related to a marketing decision support computer system for large retail organisations which optimised the prediction of revenue and profit in pricing and promotion strategies by using a statistical model to perform data mining on historical sales data and taking into account other influences. Applying the Aerotel/Macrossan test, the hearing officer held that, notwithstanding the form of the claims, the contribution as a matter of substance related solely to a computer program, to a business method (despite the applicant’s argument that it merely supported business decisions) and to a mathematical method. It was not therefore necessary to consider whether the contribution was technical in nature. However the hearing officer thought that the invention was not to do with solving a technical problem or producing a technical improvement, or with a technical combination of hardware and software; he thought the hardware was entirely conventional and that the invention was fundamentally about how a computer system was programmed.
The applicant had also disagreed with the examiner’s decision to report under s. 17(5)(b) that search would serve no useful purpose. The hearing officer held that, even if this was a matter for him to review having regard to ss. 97(1) and 101 (on which he made no decision), he saw no reason to criticise the action taken by the examiner and was not persuaded that a search needed to be done to identify possible technical differences between the invention and the prior art.
