Patent decision
- BL number
- O/327/20
- Concerning rights in
- GB1213491.2
- Hearing Officer
- Dr L Cullen
- Decision date
- 18 June 2020
- Person(s) or Company(s) involved
- Gaiasoft IP Limited
- Provisions discussed
- Section 1(2); Section 76
- Keywords
- Added subject matter, Amendment, Excluded fields (refused)
- Related Decisions
- None
Summary
The invention relates to an apparatus for preparing a profile-based characterisation of the participants in a venue, this profile being based on the identifying content communicated from the devices of the participants in the venue and from known modelling techniques. The profile is used to dynamically adjust a wide range of variables to deliver output that is better targeted to the participants, for example to the displays within or around the defined venue.
A dynamic aggregate profile of participants present in the venue may be created, the dynamic aggregate profile being constantly updated in response to changes in the participant population and being used to determine appropriate content to deliver. The content delivered may be media/advertising or may be an output to a control system of the venue.
The hearing officer (HO) found that the claims on file at the time of the hearing related to matter not disclosed in the application as filed, upholding in part the objection raised by the examiner. Excluding the added matter from the invention as claimed, the HO, applying the Aerotel/Macrossan four step test, found that the application as claimed was excluded as a computer programme as such, and as a method of doing business. A further set of claims filed shortly after the hearing as agreed, were also found by the HO to be excluded under section 1(2) as a computer programme as such, and as a method of doing business. Although, it appeared that there was a possible route for amendment, another further set of claims subsequently filed by the applicant were found to relate to a computer programme as such, and to a method of doing business.
The application was refused for failing to meet the requirements of the Act under Section 18(3).
Full decision O/327/20 
352Kb
