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 >> Arbitron Inc (Patent) [2007] UKIntelP o05507 (21 February 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o05507.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o05507, [2007] UKIntelP o5507 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o05507
Summary
The application relates to determining the popularity of various websites, broadcasting channels etc according to certain criteria, eg audience demographics. As described, a user receives “media data” from such sources through a network- connected computer which monitors and pre-processes the data to provide micro reports for sending over a network to a reporting system. By pre-processing the data on users’ computers, the volume of data transmitted to a central server is reduced.
Applying the four-step approach to the assessment of patentability under section 1(2) approved by the Court of Appeal in Aerotel/Macrossan [2006] EWCA Civ 1371, the hearing officer concluded that that the claimed invention is excluded from patentability under section 1(2) as a computer program as such and therefore fails step (3) . For completeness he also looked at step (4) since the applicant had argued that the invention introduced a technical benefit. He concluded that the reduction in data flow in the present invention is simply a consequence of a reduction in the volume of information being transmitted - rather than resulting from any new technique for transmitting data. Accordingly the invention would also fail step (4).
He could see no subject matter in the application that could be used to remedy this and refused the application under section 18(3).
