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 >> Ranger Services Ltd (Patent) [2009] UKIntelP o36209 (17 November 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2009/o36209.html Cite as: [2009] UKIntelP o36209 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
For the whole decision click here: o36209
Summary
The invention related to a method of detecting a cloned number plate on a vehicle using Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) cameras in different locations linked to a central computer. Data from the cameras was compared and a parameter based on the distance between the cameras and time difference of the captured images was used to evaluate the likelihood that a cloned number plate had been detected. The hearing officer found that the application was excluded as a mental act and a computer program. Applying the Aerotel test in the light of Symbian, and on a proper construction of the claims, the contribution lay solely in the use of this parameter in determining whether or not a number plate was a clone. The hearing officer went onto consider if the computer program made a “technical contribution” and, having decided that it did not, refused the application under Section 1(2).
The hearing officer also found that, on the basis of the four step test set out in Windurfing as amended by Pozzolli, the application did not make an inventive step in the light of the cited prior art - four patent citations and a document identified from the Internet. Specifically, the hearing officer found that “on the balance of probabilities” the internet citation was a valid citation. Thus having determined that the application did not make an inventive step,the hearing officer also refused the application under Section 1(1)(b).
