or adding hardware, that is not new and non-obvious, in a novel
and non-obvious way and having the computer control the hardware
then your
patent should be on the computer AND software AND the addition of the hardware
being controlled by the software.
If there's a hardware element in your
invention that is new and non-obvious. If all you've done is take an unmodified
piece of kit and added software then your doing what the kit is supposed to do.
ie accept data input, process it then output data to some peripheral.
The
UKIPO software patent policy may say one thing about what is patentable but case
law, and again IANAL, says another. UKIPO policy also says that it will follow
case law. When case law like Halliburton gets things wrong that means the UKIPO
is bound by it.
Again, if you think I'm wrong, then explain why. You've
pointed at Halliburton v Smith and then at the UKIPO software patent policy but
you've not explained anything. You're just handwaving.
j
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]