Decision Nº O/600/20 from Intellectual Property Office - (Patent decisions), 27 November 2020
| Judge | Mr B Buchanan |
| Court | Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom) |
| Date | 27 November 2020 |
| Patent Number | GB1800562.9 |
| Administrative Decision Number | O/600/20 |
| Parties | SITA Ypenburg B.V. |
BL O/600/20
27 November 2020
PATENTS ACT 1977
APPLICANT
SITA Ypenburg B.V.
ISSUE
Whether patent application GB1800562.9 complies
with section 1(2)(c)
HEARING OFFICER
DECISION
Background
1 This decision relates to the issue of whether the application GB1800562.9, published
as GB2568120A, meets the requirements of section 1(2)(c) of the Patents Act 1977
(“the Act”).
2 Throughout the examination process, the Examiner has maintained that the
application is excluded from patentability under section 1(2)(c) of the Act. Several
rounds of correspondence have failed to provide a resolution. In their letter of 30th
July 2020, the Applicant filed amendments and arguments in respect of the current
claims and noted that the application may be passed to a Hearing Officer for a
decision. I acknowledge the request in that letter that should the application be
passed to a Hearing Officer, a search of the amended claims be made first. I have
considered this, however I note that the Examiner’s most recent letter of 6th October
confirmed that the application will be forwarded for a decision and has not been
searched. I will therefore consider the application as it stands and as the Examiner’s
letter states, if appropriate, I will refer the application to the Examiner for a search to
be carried out. I will say that it is not unusual for a decision to be made in respect of
compliance with section 1(2) without an application having been searched, but were I
of the opinion that it was not possible in this case, I would refer the application to be
searched before reaching my decision.
3 My analysis is based upon the claims filed on 30th July 2020 and the corresponding
specification. For the avoidance of doubt no further arguments, amendments or
auxiliary requests have been filed since the Examiner’s letter of 6th October 2020.
4 The specification including the claims, the objections raised by the Examiner and the
Applicant’s arguments and observations can all be viewed at the IPO’s online file
inspection service:
https://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-ipsum.htm
Ben Buchanan
5 For completeness, the claims under consideration and the Examiner’s letter of 30th
October are included as annexes below.
Subject matter
6 The claimed invention relates to a means to facilitate interaction between a user
device, for example a traveller’s mobile ‘phone, and a self-service function at a
terminal, for example a bag-drop facility at an airport. The invention works by
determining that a user device having a ticket stored on it is in the vicinity of a self-
service function terminal. The determination may be by detection of a Bluetooth™
signal, Near Field Communication or scanning a bar code for example. Once
detected in the vicinity, the user device establishes a connection session with a
cloud service which acts as a broker between the device and the terminal. The user
device also activates an application relating to the self-service function which
receives directional information relating to the terminal via the broker.
7 The advantage of this arrangement is that the user device need not communicate
directly with the self-service terminal other than to determine it is in the vicinity. This
means that a user device can communicate via the broker with different kinds of
terminals, for example in different airports, without needing to understand the
terminal type and to be configured accordingly. As a consequence, interaction is
simplified, queuing times may be reduced and user-experience, cost of operation,
efficiency and stress may be ameliorated.
The law
8 The relevant law is defined in section 1(2) of the Act and can be viewed online at the
IPO’s website:
The Act: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-patent-act-1977
The Rules:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/69424
9/Patents-Rules-2007-06042018.pdf
9 The Manual of Patent Practice explains the IPO’s practice under the Act and makes
helpful references to relevant case law. The Manual can be viewed online at the
IPO’s website: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp. In
particular, sections 1.33-1.39.3 are helpful which relate to business methods and
computer programs. Section 1.20.3 explains that a formal search is not always
necessary to identify the nature of the contribution made by a claimed invention and
that the Examiner may rely upon their knowledge and experience. By extension, so
can I.
10 There is no dispute concerning the relevant law and its application to the facts of this
case.
Argument and analysis
11 I have carefully considered the Applicant’s arguments set out in the correspondence
on file, and the relevant law and practice. I agree with the Examiner’s analysis of the
issue as set out in his letter dated 6th October 2020 and for the reasons set out
To continue reading
Request your trial