Patent decision

BL number
O/238/12
Concerning rights in
GB0717004.6
Hearing Officer
Mr H Jones
Decision date
28 June 2012
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc.
Provisions discussed
Section 1(2)(c)
Keywords
Amendment, Excluded fields (refused), Extensions of time
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application relates to graphical programming language object editing and reporting tool for designing a process control entity within an offline database. A user selects one or more programming language object fragments from a library displayed within a stencil view of the graphical display, and selected fragments are displayed within an object view of the display. Using selected programming language object fragments, the user is able to configure a graphical programming language object for a process control entity within the programming language object view. The graphical programming language object is stored as a configuration file in a format used by the offline database, and may be mapped to a format different from that used by the offline database to generate reporting documentation and sharing the configuration file with a configuration database.

The examiner considered the invention to be excluded as a program for a computer. Amended claims were filed on the last day of the compliance period containing a main set and an auxiliary set of claims. The Hearing Officer reviewed Office practice for handling auxiliary claims and found that it is possible for applicants to file such claims provided that the order of ranking of the claims has been clearly indicated and that they can be put into effect within the compliance period. The claims were examined after the end of the compliance period. The applicant’s request to extend the compliance period was filed after the end of the two-month period allowed for doing so. The Hearing Officer found that although the rules do not explicitly preclude this two-month period for filing a request for extension from itself being extended, it cannot be possible to do so as there would then be no certainty about when an application should be terminated. He also found that there was no irregularity of procedure that would require the Comptroller to exercise discretion in favour of extending the two-month period. The order of ranking of the main and auxiliary claims was also found to be unclear.

On the substantive issue of excluded invention, the Hearing Officer reviewed a number of precedent cases and concluded that the contribution made by the invention was not technical. The application was refused.

Full decision O/238/12 PDF document105Kb