Patent decision

BL number

O/261/10

Concerning rights in

GB0621081.9

Hearing Officer

Mr P Slater

Decision date

23 July 2010

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc

Provisions discussed

PA 1977 Section 1(2)

Keywords

Excluded fields (refused)

Related Decisions

None

Summary

The invention relates to a “graphical runtime interface” for use in a process control system which can be used on a single workstation to create and configure display panels more specifically to define the information to be displayed in various panels, to control the layout and scale of the panels which can then be transferred across the network to other workstations ensuring the various displays are consistent. The information displayed on individual workstations is controlled in accordance with content information generated by the interface and associated runtime applications. In addition, the graphical runtime interface includes a runtime workspace application which sits between the operator and the various functional or runtime applications resident on the workstation, effectively encapsulating them and preventing the operator from inadvertently executing commands which may affect their operation or that of the underlying operating system. The application does this by disabling the operating systems system keys, shortcuts or combinations of other keys on the keyboard which previously would have invoked specific software functions. For example, in a Windows™ based operating environment, the runtime workspace application may disable access to the Windows keyboard shortcuts including, for example, Run Dialog (WinKey+R), Minimise all (WinKey+M), or switch to another application (Alt-tab) etc. This is said to provide a more robust, consistent and reliable process control system.

The hearing officer considered the four-step test in Aerotel/Macrossan in the light of the Symbian judgment, and found the contribution to relate to computer program for configuring displays across a network and which prevents the operator from invoking functions by accidentally pressing keys on the keyboard which may adversely affect the underlying operating system. It does this not at a technical level but by disabling keystrokes and/or combinations of keystrokes. The Hearing Officer could find no technical contribution and so refused the application under Section 18(3).