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 >> Mr Rajesh Kapur (Patent) [2009] UKIntelP o03309 (6 February 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o03309.html Cite as: [2009] UKIntelP o3309, [2009] UKIntelP o03309 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o03309
Summary
The applications form a series of applications filed by Mr Kapur relating to Document Management Systems where documents can be recovered following deletion or overwrite operations; working systems can be recovered after a fault occurs in a system having some redundancy; or system changes can be tested offline before being implemented in a live system.
These cases had been refused by a previous hearing officer’s decision (O/264/07) but that decision had been partly overturned on appeal to the Patents Court. The judge upheld the previous decision that the claims were excluded as computer programs as such but overturned the finding that a manual implementation would be excluded as a mental act and the applications were remitted for further processing. That further examination led to the present hearing where, with the exception of some additional dependent claims in one application, the claims on the applications were the same as had been previously considered.
The hearing officer held that as a result of the previous litigation, estoppel by record prevented Mr Kapur from arguing that the claims escaped exclusion as computer programs as such. This applied both to the original claims and the proposed amended claims, which still related to a computer implementation, on which the first hearing officer’s decision had been upheld.
