For the whole decision click here: o19505
Summary
The invention concerned a system for recognising music in radio broadcasts, and generating a 'playlist' from the results. A second group of claims concerned a system for recognising a commercial (advertisement) in a TV or radio broadcast. In both cases, the recognition is performed, and the playlist generated, 'in real-time'. Furthermore, in the first instance, the invention operates over a network such that broadcasts in a number of areas can be monitored, and a single playlist generated at a central location.
The Hearing Officer concluded that the first group of claims related to a program for a computer as such. He found that the second group of claims related to a method for performing a mental act and a program for a computer as such. In both instances, the Hearing Officer was unable to identify a technical contribution. Neither did he accept that the program in either situation was controlling or carrying out a technical process (per Vicom).
The Hearing Officer accepted that neither group of claims related to a method of doing business. He also agreed that the first group of claims did not relate to a method for performing a mental act, particularly in view of the distributed nature of the invention - i.e. the fact that it 'listens' to broadcasts in a plurality of areas simultaneously.