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 >> Milliken Company (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o49812 (14 December 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o49812.html
Cite as: [2012] UKIntelP o49812

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


Milliken Company (Patent) [2012] UKIntelP o49812 (14 December 2012)

Patent decision

BL number
O/498/12
Concerning rights in
GB0914378.5
Hearing Officer
Miss J Pullen
Decision date
14 December 2012
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Milliken & Company
Provisions discussed
PA 1977 Section 1(2)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The application relates to an automated system for generating large numbers of digitally defined patterns suitable for printing on textiles, in particular carpet tiles. The pattern is a composite formed from at least two digitally superimposed layers, the first is a base pattern, the second and any subsequent layers are overlay patterns. A related series of patterns are generated such that, in use, no two carpet tiles in a series have exactly the same composite pattern but have a common pattern which serves to unify the overall appearance when the carpet tiles are installed.

The Hearing Officer considered the four-step test in Aerotel/Macrossan in the light of the Symbian judgment, and found the contribution lay in a computer based process for generating a composite pattern comprised of a base pattern and at least one overlay by randomly selecting overlay patterns from a library of overlay patterns until each overlay pattern has been chosen. The Hearing Officer could find no technical contribution and so refused the application under Section 18(3).


A HTML version of this file is not available see below or click here to view the pdf version : o49812


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2012/o49812.html