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 >> Dell Products L. P. (Patent) [2008] UKIntelP o19908 (14 July 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2008/o19908.html Cite as: [2008] UKIntelP o19908 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o19908
Summary
1 The application relates to a system and method for managing data concerning service dispatches. In particular, the current system purports to identify service dispatches that require attention or are overdue for completion. For each service dispatch, a record is generated which includes data relating to the dispatch and a series of service milestones are set out for the completion of the service dispatch. The system monitors the extent to which milestones are met or more particularly are not met, whilst the service dispatch is open. The service dispatch records are sorted for display in a way which assists handling and resolution of the service dispatches. The service dispatch records are sorted for display according to a number of service milestones which have not been completed on time and have therefore been missed (“missed milestones”). The service dispatch records are also sorted according to whether they have missed milestones and also have not been claimed by a customer service representative (“unacknowledged milestones”). The service dispatch records are sorted for display so that those with “unacknowledged milestones” are displayed as a matter of priority.
2 After taking into full consideration the applicant’s case presented by Mr Howe at the hearing, the examiner’s objections and also the patent specification, the hearing officer held that the inventions of both the current claim 1 on file and the proposed amended claim 1 presented by the applicant for discussion at the hearing, define non-patentable inventions which fall within the business method and program for a computer exclusions of section 1(2)(c).
3 The hearing officer subsequently refused the application under section 18(3) for failure to comply with section 1(2)(c).
