DECISIONS
PATENTS: UK IPO
IPO decisions By David Pearce (Barker Brettell) and Callum Docherty (Withers & Rogers) Patent decisions of the comptroller can be found on the IPO website via http://bit.ly/ipodecisions, and opinions issued under section 74A via http://bit.ly/opinion-requests.
Patentability: section 1(2) Motorola Solutions, Inc. BL O/326/20 • 16 April 2020 The application related to a method of updating information in a timeline of a public safety incident, in which an electronic digital assistant updated timeline information stored for use with a timeline application based on a user query. An illustrated example described how a user could inquire about traffic conditions at the time of a traffic accident, in response to which an updated timeline with the requested information was presented. The examiner had objected to the application as claiming a method for doing business or a program for a computer as such, identifying the contribution to lie in a computer-implemented method of determining that a public safety incident had taken place during a time period based on a received query and processing data to compute information relevant to the incident and update a timeline. The applicant argued that the invention provided efficient use of memory because it only stored information for use in a timeline application relevant to a user query, and that a user interface was improved by not displaying irrelevant information. The hearing officer, noting that no search had yet been carried out, considered that what the inventor had really added to human knowledge was a computer-implemented method for updating information in a conventional timeline for a past event by, in response to a query, determining that the information related to the past event and adding the information to the timeline. The applicant argued that the third AT&T/CVON signpost, as reformulated in HTC v Apple [2013] EWCA Civ 451 (whether the program made the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer) was met because the computer operated in a new way, although admitted that the language processing engine used in the invention was conventional. It was also clear, in the hearing officer’s view, that the hardware was conventional and there was no indication that the way the data being stored or retrieved was in any way new. Although the computer did something new, that was not what the third signpost required, otherwise any computer running a new program would satisfy it. The hearing officer considered that none of the signposts pointed to the contribution of the invention being technical in nature. The contribution was also Volume 49, number 6
considered to be a method of doing business as it amounted to an essentially administrative activity. The invention as claimed was considered to fall solely within matter excluded under section 1(2) as a program for a computer and a method of doing business. The application was refused. Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. BL O/245/20 • 21 April 2020 The application related to a method of accepting handwritten input to a computer and dynamically editing based on units such as words and characters to allow a handwritten document to be handled in a similar way to typeset characters in a word processing document. The examiner considered that the application was excluded as a computer program as such, given that the contribution made by the claimed invention, as compared with a cited document disclosing entering and editing handwritten input, was in dynamically growing an insertion space and reflowing the previously entered handwriting units. The applicant argued that the contribution was not merely in editing a previously provided input but in editing the process of providing the input, resulting in the overall contribution being an improved handwriting input modality. The hearing officer considered that the applicant attempted to stretch the contribution too far, and it should instead be considered to only relate to editing of handwriting input, although this may be done before the text entry had been completed. The contribution was therefore considered to be a better means of editing handwriting text on a computer by dynamically growing an insertion space to enable edited text to be entered and dynamically reflowing the previously entered handwriting units. In relation to the fourth signpost from AT&T/CVON (whether the program makes the computer a better computer), the applicant argued that the improved input modality made the computer as a whole more reliable. The hearing officer disagreed because the contribution only improved the program handling handwriting input, not the computer as a whole. The contribution did not lie in accepting handwriting input but in the way the input was formatted. None of the other signposts indicated that the contribution was technical, resulting in the contribution being considered to fall solely within the matter excluded under section 1(2) as a program for a computer as such. The application was refused. JUNE 2020
CIPA JOURNAL
31
