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 >> Wei Xu (Patent) [2022] UKIntelP o64622 (29 July 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o64622.html Cite as: [2022] UKIntelP o64622 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
The application is one of nine divisionals which use mobile devices, servers and a wireless network to enable transactions and communication in different environments. The claimed invention defines a system which enables a customer to refer a service to another customer, by the means of the first customer-™s mobile device creating a barcode including customer identification, for a second customer to scan. The referral by the first customer of the service to the second customer can thereby be traced. The issue to be decided was whether the claims defined excluded subject matter. In arguing that the invention provided the requisite technical contribution, the Agent referred to a number of precedents and office decisions and argued that the claimed invention solved a problem using a new arrangement of hardware as well as providing advantages for processing efficiency and security. The Hearing Officer applied the four stepAerotel/Macrossantest and considered theAT&Tsignposts.The contribution was found not to provide the required technical effect and the claimed invention was found to relate solely to a program for a computer and a method for doing business as such, so the application did not meet the requirements of section 1(2)(c). The application was refused under section 18(3).
Full decisionO/646/22 447Kb