Patent decision

BL number
O/198/17
Concerning rights in
GB1312856.6
Hearing Officer
Dr L Cullen
Decision date
24 April 2017
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
F Secure Corporation
Provisions discussed
Sections 1(1)(a) and 14(3)
Keywords
Claim construction, Novelty, Sufficiency
Related Decisions
None

Summary

This invention concerns a process for selecting the most appropriate method for detecting the presence of malicious software, referred to as malware, in computer files. Different methods for detection of malware can be used to identify if such malicious software is present in particular computer files. Scanning each computer file in a system for malware takes time and consumes significant amounts of processor power. As a consequence, it is important to be able to select the most suitable method for malware detection, based on the information that can be most easily accessed from the computer file, referred to as file data. The method of the application includes obtaining first data from a file to be scanned for malware, and using the first data to determine whether a method for malware detection can be selected from the various such methods available. If it is possible to select a suitable malware detection processing step using this first data, then this is step is selected for that computer file; however if a method of malware detection cannot be selected based on this first data alone, then second data is obtained from the file to be scanned; the first and second data are used in combination to determine if a method of malware detection can be selected, and so on.

The Hearing Officer (HO) found that the claims as amended were novel over the identified prior art GB2463467A which did not require (i) the stepwise collection of file data to select a method of malware processing or (ii) the combination of first and second file data to select a malware detection processing method. The HO, taking note of the specification of the application as filed, then considered if these essential features of the claimed invention were supported by the description and disclosed in a manner that was clear and complete enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art as required under sections 14(3) and 14(5) of the Act. Taking note of the judgments in Eli Lilly v Human Genome Sciences; Edison & Swan Electric Light Co v Holland and Valensi & Anr v British Radio Corporation Ltd., the HO found that the two essential features of the claimed method which distinguished it from the prior art were not disclosed in a manner that was clear and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art.

The HO found that the method of selecting a malware detection processing method as claimed in claim 1 is not disclosed in the specification as filed in a manner that is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art as required under section 14(3) of the Act. The HO indicated that the opportunity to file amendments was available until the end of compliance period, absent which, the application would be refused under section 18(3) of the Act for failure to comply with section 14(3) of the Act.

Full decision O/198/17 PDF document103Kb