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 >> Fisher -Rosemount Systems Inc (Patent) [2010] UKIntelP o26010 (23 July 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o26010.html
Cite as: [2010] UKIntelP o26010

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


Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc [2010] UKIntelP o26010 (23 July 2010)

For the whole decision click here: o26010

Patent decision

BL number
O/260/10
Concerning rights in
GB0620323.6
Hearing Officer
Mr P Slater
Decision date
23 July 2010
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Section 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The invention relates to a graphical user interface for use in a process control system for displaying the status of various alarms associated with devices within the system to an operator. A typical process control system, for example, as used in a chemical or petroleum processing plant consists of a large number of field devices including sensors for measuring temperature, pressure and flow rates throughout the system. When an abnormal condition is detected by one or more of the sensors an alarm is typically generated at the operator workstation. Often, as a result of chain reactions with the plant, the operator may be presented with a large number of alarms at the same time, generating what is referred to as an “alarm flood” which is difficult to deal with. Furthermore, it is extremely useful for the alarm indicators to present “contextual” information about a specific alarm to the operator. For example, the identity of the device generating the alarm, its location, the date and time at which the alarm was activated are often included as part of the display. The user interface allows the operator to modify, configure and manipulate alarm indicators to show alarm priority, age and location, as well as providing additional contextual information showing the relationship between various alarms within the display.

The hearing officer considered the four-step test in Aerotel/Macrossan in the light of the Symbian judgment, and found the contribution to relate to a user interface for displaying information related to alarms in a process control system including information showing the relationship between different alarms. The Hearing Officer could find no technical contribution and so refused the application under Section 18(3).



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2010/o26010.html