For the whole decision click here: o19504
Summary
The application concerns a computer-implemented system for procurement similar to a reverse auction, in which purchasers place requests for bids to sell an item from vendors. The system compares a set of customer-defined attributes for a required product against a set of vendor-defined features for the products that a vendor actually sells. A match between the customer and vendor defined features indicates that a suitable product is available. The system contains a central database that holds details of products from a plurality of vendors and also accumulates customers' purchasing histories in order to make suggestions about products that may be of interest to customers.
It was argued that the feature of holding a central database containing information from many vendors was a technical contribution to the art, since it employed technical means and allowed customers to identify suitable products even if one or more of the vendors were unavailable due e.g. to computer problems. It was also argued that making suggestions based on a customer's purchasing history was a technical advance over known systems. In rejecting these arguments, the Hearing Officer concluded that there was no technical contribution present, the invention relating to no more than the computer-implementation of an improved business method.