United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Beijing Sifang Automation Co. Ltd (Patent) [2022] UKIntelP o32122 (13 April 2022)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2022/o32122.html
Cite as: [2022] UKIntelP o32122

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

Patent decision

BL number: O/321/22
Concerning rights in: GB1720945.3
Hearing Officer: Dr L Cullen
Decision date: 12 April 2022
Person(s) or Company(s) involved: Beijing Sifang Automation Co. Ltd
Provisions discussed: PA 1977, Section 1(2)(c)
Keywords: Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions: None

Summary

This application relates to a -śconfiguration software,-ť which is software that displays monitoring information for an industrial process or network, with the invention lying in the provision of a multilingual configuration software. Text strings to be displayed by the software are translated into a number of target languages and stored in a database, from which they are accessed as necessary. This enables the display language of the software to match that selected for the operating system of the computer on which the software is running.

The Hearing Officer, applying the first step in the test fromAerotel,found that construing independent claim was not straightforward. He concluded that this claim could be construed as a computer-implemented system, as the examiner had, or as a method for doing business. This arose because it was possible to consider some of the essential steps in claim 1 as defining the multilingual database which results from the method rather than as steps in the method itself. Both situations were considered. Taking account of theAT&Tsignposts (as modified inHTC), the HO, found that the computer-implemented system did not provide a technical effect. In relation to the alternative construction, the HO found that invention sets out a plan by which to provide multilingual functionality in configuration software which was administrative and/or commercial and not technical in nature. As a result, the claimed invention was found to relate solely to a program for a computer as such or, in the alternative, to a method for doing business as such.

Hence, the invention was excluded from patentability under section 1(2)(c) and the application was therefore refused under section 18(3).

Full decisionO/321/22 313Kb