BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office Decisions >> Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o39012 (9 October 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o39012.html
Cite as: [2012] UKIntelP o39012

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o39012 (9 October 2012)

Patent decision

BL number
O/390/12
Concerning rights in
GB0809880.8
Hearing Officer
Mr B Buchanan
Decision date
9 October 2012
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977, Section 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (allowed)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The invention relates to accessing parameters in a process control system and controlling a process using a parameter value. A universal communication interface enables communication between field devices and other data sources in a process control system. As well as enhancing compatibility between components of the system, the universal interface caches parameter values. This means that in the event of a communications failure between one or more components of the system, when a parameter value cannot be obtained directly, a stored copy of the parameter value can be obtained from the local cache memory and can be used to control the process.

The Hearing Officer considered the four-step test in Aerotel/Macrossan in the light of the Symbian judgment, and the AT&T signposts. He found that although the contribution is implemented by a program for a computer, there is a technical effect on a process outside the computer. The application was not refused under section 1(2) and was referred back to the Examiner.


A HTML version of this file is not available see below or click here to view the pdf version : o39012


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o39012.html