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 >> Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. (Patent) [2021] UKIntelP o75621 (13 October 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2021/o75621.html
Cite as: [2021] UKIntelP o75621

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


Patent decision

BL number
O/756/21
Concerning rights in
GB1804452.9
Hearing Officer
Mr P Mason
Decision date
12 October 2021
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.
Provisions discussed
Patents Act Section 1(2)
Keywords
Added subject matter, Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
O/755/21

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 additional content configured to provide an alternative display output which alternative output comprises an augmented reality (AR) output and at least one of 3D or 2D audio-video output. The claimed invention further requires 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. The hearing Officer applied the four step test from Aerotel and considered the AT&T Signposts. When considering the contribution, the efficient display of scripted events of a narrative was not considered to be a technical contribution, as such he found that the application lacked the required technical contribution and refused the application as a computer program as such. The application was refused.

Full decisionO/756/21 PDF document 436Kb


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2021/o75621.html