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 >> Robert Benjamin Franks (Patent) [2005] UKIntelP o02505 (28 January 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2005/o02505.html Cite as: [2005] UKIntelP o2505, [2005] UKIntelP o02505 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o02505
Summary
The application relates to a computer system for enabling the input of data relating to trade mark applications. A user is able to input details of the applicants identity, the trade mark being applied for and account details for the applicant via a computer terminal. He can also select the country or countries and the classes of goods and services for which protection is sought from displayed data which includes cost information. Finally an electronic message confirming the inputted data is generated and sent between various computer resources in the system. In the embodiment described this confirmation message is an electronic filing receipt issued by a trade marks office upon receipt of an electronically filed application.
Some of the applicants arguments centered around the following points: The UK office should be consistent with the EPO's interpretation of the EPC; the TRIPS agreement; technical aspect; the definition (Interpretation) of technical; consideration of other granted patents; reducing delays and errors; making data input easy; real time processing. The hearing Officer held that for an otherwise excluded item to be patentable it had to make a technical contribution and that Fujitsu did not support the case that a technical aspect was sufficient.
It was held that the invention claimed in the specification did not involve any technical contribution and therefore the application was excluded from patentability as a method of doing business and a program for a computer as such.
