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 >> PET Technology Store limited (Patent) [2014] UKIntelP o46014 (27 October 2014)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2014/o46014.html
Cite as: [2014] UKIntelP o46014

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


PET Technology Store limited (Patent) [2014] UKIntelP o46014 (27 October 2014)

Patent decision

BL number
O/460/14
Concerning rights in
GB1110449.4
Hearing Officer
Mr S Brown
Decision date
27 October 2014
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
PET Technology Store limited
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 sections 1(1)(b), 1(2) and 76(2).
Keywords
Added subject matter, Excluded fields (refused), Inventive step
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application relates to a system for identifying lost or stolen animals and reuniting them with their owners.

The hearing officer decided that the claims as most recently amended included added matter that was not present in the application as filed.

He also applied the Windsurfing/Pozzoli test and concluded that the claims were inventive over the cited prior art. This remained true even when the added subject matter was omitted.

Finally, the Hearing Officer applied the Aerotel/Macrossan test and identified that the contribution made by the invention resided in processing data such that only unique identification numbers were provided to hand-held scanners with owner personal data being held elsewhere. As this was done in order to conform with data protection legislation the hearing officer concluded that the contribution fell solely within excluded matter and did not have a relevant technical effect. The application was refused as no more than some combination of a method of doing business and a programme for a computer as such.


A HTML version of this file is not available see below or click here to view the pdf version : o46014


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2014/o46014.html