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 >> Motorola Mobility, Inc. (Patent) [2013] UKIntelP o17413 (29 April 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2013/o17413.html
Cite as: [2013] UKIntelP o17413

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


Motorola Mobility, Inc. (Patent) [2013] UKIntelP o17413 (29 April 2013)

Patent decision

BL number
O/174/13
Concerning rights in
GB1019471.0
Hearing Officer
Mr B Buchanan
Decision date
29 April 2013
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977 section 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The invention relates to the customisation of a graphical user interface (GUI) of a networked communication device which is used to access services such as calls, messaging and the Internet. A service usage history is analysed to enable the GUI to be customised dependent upon user patterns and preferences. The invention prioritises the placement and display of elements for selecting service options on the GUI accordingly. Consequently, the user experiences quicker and easier access to services, because the invention presents service options in accordance with the determined most likely next user action.

The Hearing Officer considered whether the claimed invention was excluded from patentability under section 1(2). He followed the four step test set-out in Aerotel/Macrossan as confirmed by Symbian in considering whether the better interface, which enables a user to access communication services more quickly, provides the required technical contribution. The claims were found to define an invention falling solely within the excluded subject matter and which does not provide the required technical contribution. First and second auxiliary claims were also considered, but these were also found not to define a patentable invention. The application was refused.


A HTML version of this file is not available see below or click here to view the pdf version : o17413


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2013/o17413.html