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 >> Apple Inc (Patent) [2013] UKIntelP o24413 (6 June 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2013/o24413.html Cite as: [2013] UKIntelP o24413 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
The invention relates to a data synchronization protocol, in which synchronization messages to be exchanged between a client and server comprise separate sync modes (e.g. fast, slow, reset) associated with different dataclasses of data to be synchronized. The sync modes may be provided in parallel and the data may be updated in parallel. This is achieved by proposing and agreeing the sync mode for each dataclass; sending sync-start, sync-changes and finally a sync-commit command between client and server. By sending commands in parallel, data can be updated with fewer message round trips. Thus the advantages of the claimed invention are greater reliability and lower bandwidth usage (by using fewer messages and roundtrips) as well as recovery from interruption (by using sync anchors to track sync sessions).
The Hearing Officer considered whether the claimed invention was excluded from patentability under section 1(2). He followed the four step test set-out in Aerotel/Macrossan as confirmed by Symbian in considering whether the contribution provided by the synchronization protocol is actually technical. The claims were found to define an invention falling solely within the excluded subject matter, as a program for a computer and which does not provide the required technical contribution. The application was refused.
