Patent decision
- BL number
- O/569/18
- Concerning rights in
- Patent Application GB1421455.5
- Hearing Officer
- Dr J E Porter
- Decision date
- 12 September 2018
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd
- Provisions discussed
- Patents Act 1977 section 1(2)
- Keywords
- Excluded fields (refused)
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The application concerned calendar or other similar organisational applications for computing devices. The invention provided a method and system for prioritising items to be presented to a device user, taking into account “contextual data” such as the user’s search history, purchase history, current and past locations, and people the user had communicated with.
The hearing officer followed the Aerotel steps to determine whether the invention was excluded from patentability. He concluded that the contribution made by the invention was a method for determining what is of interest or trending for a user of an information handling device at a particular time and at a particular location, which may be used to intelligently organise upcoming items for action accordingly.
Using the AT&T signposts, he concluded that this was no more than a computer program. The software built up and used a contextualised user profile, by choosing to determine and record certain data, in particular circumstances or in a particular order. The components or means actuated or addressed by the software were being used in a technically conventional way. At best, the software caused components or means of the device to be actuated or addressed in a different sequence from prior devices. This did not lead in itself to a technical improvement through the computer running in a new way; nor was it an improvement being made at an architectural level, or irrespective of the particular software. The signposts pointed away from any technical contribution.
The contribution was also a method for doing business. It was purely an administrative or organisational task involving assimilating and reviewing information and data, making judgments about what was of interest or importance for a device user, and organising actions or other items on the basis of these judgments.
The application was refused.
Full decision O/569/18 
254Kb
