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 >> Mr Thomas Michael Anderson (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o11212 (9 March 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o11212.html
Cite as: [2012] UKIntelP o11212

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


Mr Thomas Michael Anderson (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o11212 (9 March 2012)

Patent decision

BL number
O/112/12
Concerning rights in
GB0709839.5
Hearing Officer
Mr A Bartlett
Decision date
9 March 2012
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Mr Thomas Michael Anderson
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977 section 1(2)(c)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The decision concerns whether the contribution made by the invention falls within the excluded fields as a scheme, rule or method for playing a game.

The invention comprises a word game in which single vowels are added to or subtracted from a word (presented in the form of an anagram) in order to produce longer or shorter dictionary-defined words. The examiner had objected that the claimed invention was excluded under section 1(2)(c) as a scheme, rule or method for playing a game and/or performing a mental act, and/or the presentation of information. The examiner had also informed the applicant that he was unable to see anything in the application which could form the basis of a patentable claim.

Applying the Aerotel test, the hearing officer concluded that the contribution made by invention fell solely within excluded matter as it related to the rules for playing the particular game. In addition, upon reviewing the application as a whole the hearing officer concluded there were no possible amendments which could support a patentable claim, since any apparatus used to play the game was already known. Given that the application wholly fell within the 'games' exclusion, the hearing officer saw no need to consider other excluded fields.


A HTML version of this file is not available see below or click here to view the pdf version : o11212


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o11212.html