For the whole decision click here: o17008
Summary
The invention claimed a transaction interface and method which received and parsed a mobile telephone transaction instruction, set out in a predetermined “lightweight” syntax, in order to determine its information content, and from that content generated control data from which a back-end system could carry out the transaction. A transaction could therefore be instructed by a single SMS text message and did not need a high bandwidth connection with a fully functional browser and a high resolution screen display, as had previously been the case when accessing “rich content” web-based news and brokerage services.
Applying the Aerotel test irrespective of IGT / Acres Gaming [2008] EWHC 568 and Symbian Ltd [2008] EWHC 518, the hearing officer did not accept that the contribution lay in the interface and held that the use of a single instructing message did not in fact distinguish from the cited prior art as was alleged. In his view any contribution lay in the provision of a particular form of syntax in a known type of interface; this was in substance a matter of programming providing no technical effect different from the prior art. The hearing officer accordingly held that the invention was excluded as a computer program since there was no technical contribution beyond that to be expected from loading the program. However, although he was not convinced that claiming the invention in terms of “allowing transactions to be instructed” would avoid the business method exclusion if the transactions were business transactions, he accepted that this was not necessarily the case. The invention was not therefore excluded as a business method.