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!



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 >> Pegasystems Inc. (Patent) [2021] UKIntelP o33221 (5 May 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2021/o33221.html
Cite as: [2021] UKIntelP o33221

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


Patent decision

BL number
O/332/21
Concerning rights in
GB1710361.5
Hearing Officer
Mr B Buchanan
Decision date
5 May 2021
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Pegasystems Inc.
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977 section 1(2)(c)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The claimed invention relates to collaborative access to a software application or website on a user-™s computer over a network. It is designed to facilitate assistance or support to a first user, provided by a second user such as a customer service representative. The invention works by automatically determining a subset of user interface elements on a first user-™s computer for presentation to a second computer. A user of the second computer can identify relevant elements which are then highlighted on the first computer, alongside a chat function. The selection of the subset and the highlighting of identified elements are performed in conjunction with an intermediary server which uses structured document properties, attributes and events to transmit only the selected and identified data. Resource, time and complexity is therefore reduced. Security can be enhanced.

The Hearing Officer followed the four stepAerotel/Macrossantest to determine whether there was a technical contribution and considered theAT&Tsignposts.The identified contribution was not found to provide the required technical effect and the claimed invention was found to relate solely to a program for a computer as such, so the application did not meet the requirements of section 1(2)(c). The application was refused under section 18(3).

Full decisionO/332/21 PDF document 246Kb


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2021/o33221.html