The Manual of Patent Practice, as referred to by the GP, has a section on page 9
called "Computer Programs".
In this section on computer programs there is a
reference which stood out (as it was surrounded by red text), on page 11 1.29.6.
In Protecting
Kids the World Over (PKTWO) LTD’s Patent application [2012] RPC 13 the
invention solved a technical problem lying outside the computer, namely how to
improve the generation of an alarm in response to inappropriate communication,
and therefore was not excluded from patentability.
From the
judgement, Judge Floyd says that:
4. The application relates to a
system for monitoring the content of electronic communications to ensure that
users (e.g. children) are not exposed to inappropriate content or language. As
claimed in claim 33, the invention comprises a data communications analysis
engine which samples (or in jargon "packet sniffs") data packets from a
communications channel for further analysis of their content. The data packets
are then monitored using a sequence of "hash tables" which assign a score to the
data packet depending on the expressions found in the data packets. An aggregate
alert level is assigned to the packet. The aggregate alert level is passed to a
security warning algorithm which generates an alert notification to users. There
is then a "request and response engine" for sending a notification to an
administrator/user such as a parent and for receiving a response from the
administrator/user comprising one of several actions to be taken by the
computer. The actions to be taken by the computer include one of (a) alerting a
user, (b) terminating the electronic communication on the channel or (c)
shutting down the equipment. What is envisaged is that the computer will send
the alert notification, in effect an alarm, to a parent by email or SMS message.
The parent will be able to send a remote response command of one of the
specified types and the computer will respond accordingly.
IANAL
and I haven't read the patent (I know there's "more" to it that the above
description). I don't have the background that many have here but based on the
description of the patent above the only thing that I can see that could loosely
be construed as having an effect outside the computer is "(c) shutting down the
equipment". Sounds like something I'm sure I heard of years ago for shutting
down a computer when it was overheating and paging a technician to get in the
office asap.
The manual also refers to Re
Halliburton where Judge Birss said:
72. ... Although obviously
some mathematics is involved, the contribution is not solely a mathematical
method (on top of being a computer program) because the data on which the
mathematics is performed has been specified in the claim in such a way as to
represent something concrete (a drill bit design etc.).
So a
representation of something concrete is good enough to make a computer program
patentable. Birss is not a "cool" judge. Neither is Floyd. Both have made
other silly judgements about computer programs.
The EPO and UKIPO differ
slightly, according to Birss in Re Halliburton, in terms of patentability and
inventive step (if I read it correctly) but not by much. The UK Patents Act and
EPC are in accordance in that both contain an exclusion for computer programs as
such.
The 4 step approach is fine, in my eyes, but the definition of
excluded subject matter is the problem. Since excluded subject matter includes
the "as such" provision these judges will always have the leeway to say, "it's
not just a computer program so it is patentable".
I don't have an
answer to your question, "Does anybody know how far UK practice reflects EU Laws
and practice and how it differs?". The best I can do is point you to British and Irish Legal
Information Institute which has many (all?) of the decisions for the UK from
recent years, some EU case law and links to other law databases around the
world. There are 1135 hits for "computer program" of which I'm sure a few are
relevant.
j [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
