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 >> Sports Analysis Limited (Patent) [2009] UKIntelP o07609 (23 March 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o07609.html
Cite as: [2009] UKIntelP o07609, [2009] UKIntelP o7609

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


Sports Analysis Limited [2009] UKIntelP o07609 (23 March 2009)

For the whole decision click here: o07609

Patent decision

BL number
O/076/09
Concerning rights in
GB 0407060.3
Hearing Officer
Mr R C Kennell
Decision date
23 March 2009
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Sports Analysis Limited
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Sections 1(1), 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused), Inventive step
Related Decisions
None

Summary

In order to take account of frequent changes in the pin position on a golf hole and provide an up-to-date course guide, the invention took a GPS reading of the pin location and generated a printed map of the hole with graduations showing the distance between the pin and a fixed point on the hole; the method (but not the system) main claim required the graduations to be overprinted on to a card already having a graphic representation of the hole.

Applying the Windsurfing/Pozzoli test for inventive step, the hearing officer held the system claim obvious to the skilled person (a golf course cartographer with knowledge that GPS could be used to map the position of any feature on a hole including the pin, albeit usually for on-course guidance to golfers by electronic means), but held the method claim to involve an inventive idea however simple the overprinting might be to implement. The hearing officer discounted the commercial success of the invention.

Nevertheless, applying the Aerotel test on excluded invention and treating the application as refused, the hearing officer considered that the contribution of any invention present related solely to the presentation of information. The contribution was neither technical in nature nor did it solve a technical problem - even if technical means including use of GPS were needed to put it into effect, these means were wholly conventional.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o07609.html