Patent decision

BL number

O/184/15

Concerning rights in

GB1222096.8

Hearing Officer

Dr L Cullen

Decision date

16 April 2015

Person(s) or Company(s) involved

Supercell Oy

Provisions discussed

Sections 1(2)

Keywords

Excluded fields (refused)

Related Decisions

None

Summary

This application relates to the use of a graphical user interface (GUI) for control of complex technical facilities or simulations thereof. In particular, the application refers to simulation software being used as part of gaming software. A farming simulation is illustrated where a menu, a so-called item specific menu or ISM, of different crop choices are available at each location.

This application is concerned with improving the ability of the user to control the game or simulation by providing a GUI that recognises multiple touches at multiple locations made by a swiping motion across the interface by a mouse or, if touch sensitive, by a finger. The advantage offered by this invention is that it enables easier and quicker, and thus more efficient and effective, input of multiple user selections of various types multiple times and across multiple locations.

The Agent argued that the IPO has an obligation to harmonise their examination practice with that of the EPO, and other jurisdictions, including the US, where equivalent applications have been granted or are progressing towards grant. In addition they argued that the position held by the IPO and by UK patent courts regarding exclusions from patentability is incorrect in general, and that the principles established in UK case law ought not to be followed. The Agent considers that the invention provides a technical effect that “resources can be more efficiently and rapidly controlled”.

Having pointed out that the IPO, as the lowest tier tribunal in the UK, is bound to follow the decisions of the higher courts in the UK, the Hearing Officer used the four step approach from Aerotel and the signposts from AT&T to consider the contribution and found that the invention lacked a technical effect. He concluded that it was excluded under Section 1(2) of the Act because it relates to a programme for a computer and to presentation of information and the application was refused under section 18(3) of the Act.

Full decision O/184/15 288Kb