Patent decision

BL number
O/040/08
Concerning rights in
GB0603446.5
Hearing Officer
Mrs S E Chalmers
Decision date
13 February 2008
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Section 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application is concerned with data processing, for example, in the field of electronic games. It is often the case that where a data processor has been upgraded to a new “generation”, the manufacturer will still want software relating to the older generation device to be handled. One way of achieving this is for the newer generation device to run emulation software which acts upon instructions relating to the older generation device. The invention does this by dividing the emulation of an emulated processing unit between two or more emulating processing units and using a single emulating processing unit to emulate two or more emulated processing units. This method is said to provide faster and more efficient communication and reduced message traffic. There were four independent claims to a data processor, a method of data processing, a computer program and a computer program on a carrier.

The hearing officer applied the four part test set out in the Aerotel and Macrossan judgment and found the invention claimed in the apparatus and method claims to be excluded as a computer program. Following the judgment of Astron Clinica, the computer program and program on a carrier claims were not excluded solely because they related to a computer program or a program on a carrier; such claims were allowable if the method performed by running that program was allowable. However, since the hearing officer found that the contribution provided by the apparatus and method claims fell solely within the computer program exclusion, it followed that the contribution made by the invention defined in the computer program or a program on a carrier claims must likewise fall within the computer program exclusion. Thus those claims were also excluded. The application was refused.

Full decision O/040/08 PDF document34Kb