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) [2007] UKIntelP o19207 (11 July 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o19207.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o19207 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o19207
Summary
It was known for casinos to issue their own identification cards for use by players of gaming machines, but the invention allowed information to be read from a pre-existing card such as a driver’s licence or credit card and used, without decrypting it, to identify whether the player had an account. The claims related to methods and apparatus for selecting a pre-existing account or establishing a new account, and to computer programs which instructed a computer to perform such methods. The hearing officer refused the application for lack of patentability.
Thus, notwithstanding a prior US specification disclosing the use of a pre-existing card but whose information required decryption in order to be used, the hearing officer (applying the Aerotel/Macrossan test) did not consider the contribution to lie solely in the use of non-decrypted information irrespective of its source, but thought it relied also on a recognition that encrypted information on a pre-existing card could be used in this way. He therefore held the contribution to relate solely to a computer program only in the case of the program claims, and held it to relate solely to a business method in the case of the method and apparatus claims.
On inventive step, the examiner had drawn a close parallel between the invention and known systems for identifying account holders in databases (eg using dates of birth, randomly generated account numbers or e-mail addresses). However the hearing officer did not consider this sufficed to show lack of inventive step.
