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 >> Vodafone Group PLC (Patent) [2011] UKIntelP o09711 (9 March 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2011/o09711.html
Cite as: [2011] UKIntelP o09711, [2011] UKIntelP o9711

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


Vodafone Group PLC [2011] UKIntelP o09711 (9 March 2011)

For the whole decision click here: o09711

Patent decision

BL number
O/097/11
Concerning rights in
GB0500914.7
Hearing Officer
Mrs C L Davies
Decision date
9 March 2011
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Vodafone Group PLC
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Section 1(2)(c)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application relates to a mobile communication device and a method for updating information for a mobile communication device. During operation of a mobile communication device, a user may activate a communication session between the device and a network where information required by the user is downloaded. The device has a cache for storing the downloaded information wherein each information item has an associated time limit. The time limit is used to determine whether a stored information item requires revalidation/refreshing. When the time limit has been exceeded the device automatically revalidates/refreshes the information item when access to the network is available.

The Hearing Officer found, on applying the Aerotel/Macrossan test, that the contribution lay solely within the excluded field of a business method and a computer program. The communication device has a “user agent” implemented by the device’s processor through a computer program to control the decision making process to revalidate/refresh the information. The Hearing Officer subsequently refused the application.



BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2011/o09711.html