Patent decision

BL number

O/452/13

Concerning rights in

GB1223381.3

Hearing Officer

Dr L Cullen

Decision date

8 November 2013

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Bloom Health Corporation

Provisions discussed

Sections 1(2)

Keywords

Excluded fields (refused)

Related Decisions

None

Summary

PCT application WO 2012/009073 entitled “Systems and methods for customizing product selections based on member parameters and providing the selections to members for purchase" entered the UK national phase as application GB1223381.3. It relates to a web based method for allowing an employee to purchase from a recommended selection of products, in this case healthcare insurance products. The selection is based on parameters entered by the employer, in particular, the amount of money that the employer is prepared to provide for the employee to purchase a product. The selection is also tailored to the employee, based on an employee profile established through the employee’s responses to a survey.

The hearing officer, applying the test as outlined in Aerotel/Macrossan, found that the contribution resided in the provision of a secure web-based method for selecting products for purchase by an employee which ensures the suitability of the product for the employee by basing the selection on a personality profile determined using a survey and by allowing the employee the opportunity to review the personality profile and change it if necessary. The applicant argued that because of the use of a survey and personality profile which can be reviewed by the employee, the invention results in a more accurate and reliable recommendation of products and, thus, the computer itself works more effectively as a computer and so makes a technical contribution. The Hearing officer found that this contribution, while it may well provide a more accurate recommendation of products, does not have any impact on how the computer itself behaves - it does not result in a better computer that is more efficient and/or effective.

The hearing officer concluded that the application as claimed is excluded under Section 1(2) of the Act because it relates to a programme for a computer and to a method of doing business and the application was refused under section 18(3) of the Act.