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 >> Acres Gaming Incorporated (Patent) [2006] UKIntelP o11206 (3 May 2006) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2006/o11206.html Cite as: [2006] UKIntelP o11206 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o11206
Summary
The application related to a networked gaming system which changed the game content and behaviour based on recorded data about players, thus allowing a casino operator to tailor the experience to an individual. Using the approach in CFPH LLP's Appn [2005] EWHC 1589, it was not disputed that any advance lay in the feedback to the gaming terminal. However, refusing the application, the hearing officer did not accept the applicants argument that this was an advance in an apparatus feature (the feedback mechanism): he considered that argument to concentrate on form rather than substance, and that the advance was essentially in the way a game was played and the instructions to be fed in to enable this. As to whether the invention related to a 'scheme, rule or method', the hearing officer considered the advance to lie in a method of playing a game as such, even though the manner of playing it was determined by someone other than the players or constrained by means over which they had no control. The hearing officer accepted that the internet lottery game in Shopalotto.Com Ltd's Appn [2005] EWHC 2416 did not turn on the games exclusion, but did not think that had a bearing on his decision.
In view of the subsequent decision in Macrossan's Appn [2006] EWHC 705, the hearing officer made no decision on whether the invention was also excluded as a business method. An objection that the invention related to a computer program had been withdrawn before the hearing and the hearing officer therefore made no decision whether the invention was also excluded for this reason.
