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 >> Hitachi, Ltd. (Patent) [2021] UKIntelP o87721 (8 December 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2021/o87721.html
Cite as: [2021] UKIntelP o87721

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


Patent decision

BL number
O/877/21
Concerning rights in
GB1820379.4
Hearing Officer
Mr B Buchanan
Decision date
3 December 2021
Person(s) or Company(s) involved
Hitachi, Ltd.
Provisions discussed
Patents Act 1977, section 1(2)(c)
Keywords
Excluded fields (refused)
Related Decisions
None

Summary

The claimed invention relates to managing a water supply system e.g. for the supply of water to homes and businesses. Specifically, the invention seeks to determine a prioritised order for investing in infrastructure such as pipes and tanks, by supply area. This determination is made based on stored details of consumption and loss in the water supply, processing to generate a graphic display of consumption and comparison of the effects of implementing a particular maintenance or upgrade solution for each supply area. The particular solution is specified by a user. The invention then determines a priority order for implementation of the particular solution based on the efficiency of the solution in each area. The objective is to minimise water wastage within controlled costs.

The Hearing Officer followed the four stepAerotel/Macrossantest to determine whether there was a technical contribution and considered theAT&Tsignposts.The contribution was not found to provide the required technical effect and the claimed invention was found to relate solely to a program for a computer and a method for doing business as such, so the application did not meet the requirements of section 1(2)(c). The application was refused under section 18(3).

Full decisionO/877/21 PDF document 570Kb


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKIntelP/2021/o87721.html