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!
[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 >> Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Patent) [2021] UKIntelP o75521 (12 October 2021) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2021/o75521.html Cite as: [2021] UKIntelP o75521 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Summary
The invention relates to a method for providing audio-video data to provide a virtual reality (VR) display output when processed by a VR headset, including providing additional content packaged with the audio-video data. The claimed invention required that the AR output is configured -to simulate the VR output- when it is used in conjunction with the at least one of a 2D or 3D audio-video output. The examiner had objected to added matter, inventive step and excluded subject matter. The hearing Officer decided that the amended claims were fully supported by the description and as such went on to consider the excluded subject matter. It was clear that the contribution was put into effect by a computer programmed to configure and package the audio-video data. The computer consists of conventional data processing hardware. The specific method of configuring or packaging the data is not disclosed and so was similarly assumed to be conventional. The hearing Officer applied the four step test from Aerotel and considered the AT&T Signposts. The contribution was considered to reside in the enjoyment of narrative content displayed, as such it was found that the application lacked the required technical contribution. The application was refused as a computer program as such. There was no further consideration of obviousness.
Full decisionO/755/21 332Kb