Case 1: Agilent Technologies Inc BL O/141/06

This application relates to monitoring a telephone signalling network. It allows the user to look at a variety of different pieces of information relating to both voice messages and data transmission.

Applying the test in Macrossan/Aerotel

1. Construe the claim:

Claim 1 is straightforward and requires no further interpretation, covering the system as described above.

2. Identify the actual contribution:

The applicant identified this as the facility to be able to choose which types of record you want to look at and which functions you want to carry out on those records. This seems a correct assessment of the contribution (and was agreed by the original hearing officer).

3. Ask whether it falls solely within the excluded subject matter:

The contribution as determined above appears to be nothing beyond a better, more flexible computer program processing data - as was noted by the original hearing officer. Selecting records & functions are simply computer program features. This therefore appears to be solely a computer program.

If the obiter comments in Fujitsu on mental act are followed, then this invention would also be excluded as a mental act.  However, if the obiter Macrossan comments are followed, it would not be.  

4. Check whether the actual or alleged contribution is actually technical in nature:

Having already determined the contribution purely within the excluded area, this check seems redundant.

Conclusion

This application would be refused under section 1(2) as being a program for a computer program, as found by the hearing officer.