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 >> Symbian Limited (Patent) [2008] UKIntelP o26008 (24 September 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o26008.html
Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o26008

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


Symbian Limited [2008] UKIntelP o26008 (24 September 2008)

For the whole decision click here: o26008

Patent decision

BL number
O/260/08
Concerning rights in
GB 0329283.6
Hearing Officer
Mr R C Kennell
Decision date
24 September 2008
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Symbian Limited
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Section 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The invention automated the purely conversational exchange of names between two people to establish mutual contacts by comparing lists of contact entries stored in devices such as mobile telephones and displaying to a user only those contacts determined to be common; neither user would therefore have access to all of the other’s contacts. The comparison preferably involved the application of a one-way function such as a hash key to the contacts data so that only a representation of the data, not the data itself, would be communicated outside the device.

Applying the Aerotel test and refusing the applications as relating to computer programs as such, the hearing officer held that the contribution was solely the effect of running a program and did not accept that there was a technical effect by reason of improved data security. He did not accept that a manual equivalent involving the use of a trusted third party to compare the lists was within the scope of the invention (an argument advanced by the applicant to show that the contribution could not relate solely to a computer program), but if it was he held that it was not technical in nature even if it passed the third Aerotel step.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o26008.html