This process was repeated until the user had provided enough information to allow the documents legally required to create the corporate entity to be generated.
Macrossan sought a review of the patent examiner's finding, by way of a hearing before a UKPO hearing officer - she held[9] that the application related to a computer program as such, a method for doing business as such, and a method for performing a mental act as such, and thus was excluded from patentability on each of those three grounds.
The High Court concurred in finding[10] that the application related to a computer program as such, and to a method for performing a mental act as such and was unpatentable for each of those two reasons.
However, the High Court specifically overruled the UKPO hearing officer on one of the three grounds of exclusion, by holding[11] that the application did not relate to a method of doing business as such.
In relation to Macrossan's patent application, it was held that the subject matter was unpatentable on the grounds of the computer program and business method exclusions.
[13] Instead, the reader is directed to the lengthy summary of past case law that is included as an Appendix to the judgment to understand the reasoning of the judges fully.
However, Jacob had previously ruled[15][16] that TRIPS does not have direct effect on UK law and thus did not affect the case in question.
The House of Lords had already tackled fundamental questions such as novelty,[20] inventive step,[21] claim construction and sufficiency[22] during 2004 and 2005.
The House of Lords refused leave to hear the appeal, citing the reason that the case "does not raise an arguable point of law of general public importance".
[23][24][25] Some patent attorneys have expressed surprise at this decision since, while the merits of Macrossan's case might have been arguable, it was felt that there are issues with the law that require resolving.
The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure have expressed the view that the decision of the House of Lords confirms the correctness of the Court of Appeal.
Before a substantive examination report was issued, the application was deemed to be withdrawn in October 2009 after Macrossan failed to pay a maintenance fee.
In response to this, Alain Pompidou, then president of the European Patent Office (EPO), wrote to Lord Justice Jacob to say that while clarification of certain issues relating to excluded subject matter would be welcomed, there were currently insufficient differences between relevant Board of Appeal decisions that would justify a referral.
The practice of the EPO to deem non-technical subject matter, such as new music or a story, as part of the prior art was criticised in the judgment as not being intellectually honest.
[33] A similar criticism was also raised during appeal T 1284/04, in response to which the EPO Board of Appeal stated that: the COMVIK approach does not consider the non-technical constraints as belonging to the prior art, but rather as belonging to the conception or motivation phase normally preceding an invention since they may lead to a technical problem without contributing to its solution.
[37] The Board further considered that The "technical effect approach (with the rider)" applied in the Aerotel/Macrossan judgement is irreconcilable with the European Patent Convention also for the further reason that it presupposes that "novel and inventive purely excluded matter does not count as a 'technical contribution'" (Aerotel/Macrossan, e.g. paragraph No.