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 David Duke (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o29712 (2 August 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o29712.html
Cite as: [2012] UKIntelP o29712

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


Mr David Duke (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o29712 (2 August 2012)

Patent decision

BL number
O/297/12
Concerning rights in
GB0709391.7
Hearing Officer
Mrs S E Chalmers
Decision date
2 August 2012
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Mr David Duke
Provisions discussed
PA 1977, Section 1(1) and 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused), Inventive step
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The invention relates to a password entry system designed to prevent third parties from stealing personal identification numbers (PINs) when they are entered in plain view. This is achieved by generating a matrix which contains random characters such as letters at the login process and providing selection buttons to select the row in which a character of the password exists. To make it harder for an unauthorised person to work out the password, each character is present in more than one line at once and the user has a choice of selection buttons. When the user enters his password, he selects a row which contains the character of the password and repeats this action for each character in the order in which they appear in the password. The computer can then match the password against the data collected from the characters in the selected rows.

The Hearing Officer found that the invention claimed involved an inventive step. She went on to apply the four step test set out in Aerotel/Macrossan and found that the contribution made by the invention fell within excluded fields, namely to a computer program and the presentation of information as such. The application was refused.


A HTML version of this file is not available see below or click here to view the pdf version : o29712


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o29712.html