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 >> LG Electronics Inc. (Patent) [2007] UKIntelP o10207 (13 April 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2007/o10207.html Cite as: [2007] UKIntelP o10207 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o10207
Summary
The application related to updating the content of electronic XML-based documents relating to broadcasting programmes by notifying invalid content to the client which stored the original document, the notification being defined by the syntax defining the structure of the electronic document. This avoided the need to learn a new syntax for updating and meant that a broadcasting device, such as a television, would need only a single apparatus, chip or algorithm in order both to provide and update basic information such as a programme guide. Applying the four-step Aerotel/Macrossan test, the hearing officer held that the invention failed the third step because as a matter of substance there was no contribution beyond a computer program up and running, even if the claims could be regarded as tethered to a physical result (see Cappellini/Bloomberg LP, [2007] EWHC 476). Even if there was an advantage that only a single program was needed in order to both process and update a document, this did not translate into “hardware” features.
It was not therefore necessary to go on to the fourth step and consider whether the contribution was technical in nature. On this point the hearing officer did not accept the applicant’s argument that in view of Cappellini/Bloomberg LP the fourth step should be an essential backstop in all cases to see if the invention produced a relevant technical effect. He thought this was really a question about how the contribution of the invention should be defined in the second step of Aerotel/Macrossan, and whether a narrower formulation of the claims might involve a contribution going beyond extended matter.
