Re: [Fsfe-uk] Judgment in the patent dispute of the "Bromcom" case

[James Heald]

Ralph Janke wrote:

> Judge David Young QC has ruled in the "Bromcom" case, Secretary of State 
> for Education and Skills v Frontline Technology Ltd  [2004] All ER (D) 
> 170 (Jun).
>
> According to the judgment two claims were deemed invalid on reasons of 
> prior art were lacking any inventive step. However the third claim was 
> upheld.
>
> Interestingly both, Forntline Technology Ltd  
> (http://www.frontline-technology.com/) and the DFES 
> (http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/management/tools/ims/patent/) seem to 
> claim victory regarding this judgment.
>
> I am currently myself trying to analyse the concequences of the 
> judgment. In a first view it seems to me that the general usage of 
> software principles seem to have been freed from the patent on grounds 
> of prior art and lack of any inventive step. The claim that was upheld 
> is centered on the principle of the wireless transfer protocol used.
>
> As I understand it currently, this could mean that any derivation of the 
> very detailed configuration of wireless links will therefore not fall 
> under the patent anymore (i.e. just the lack of using a RS-485 interface 
> to the data-server, the way of scheduling multiple radio-links etc.).
>
> One of the interesting points in the judgment seems to be the way the 
> judge decided prior art. The third claim was not ruled invlaid because 
> the judge believes a "IT educationalist" would have not automatically 
> come to the same conclusion in building a wireless network at the time 
> of the patent filing. I am a little astonished by the fact that the 
> judge defined the group of people who should have been able to use 
> obvious steps was kept very small as people working at a school, but he 
> seemed to have excluded RF and IT experts in the field of networking. I 
> have to do some more research in the prior cases the judge cited around 
> this issue.
>
> Anyhow, just wanted to give a short summary...

IP Kat has more information here (though their slant sticks in the throat!)

http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2004/06/truancy-patent-goes-missing-in-part.html

"Claims 1 and 2 were obvious and lacking in an inventive step in view of 
K’s prior use. Claim 7 was not however obvious in the light of either 
the cited prior art or any use or disclosures. The concept of a wireless 
network system using portable laptops or palmtops in place of wired PCs 
was no more than a logical alternative to K’s system, as would have been 
obvious at the material time, to a team of persons skilled in the IT 
education field and a to general systems analyst considering K’s system. 
However claim 7, relating to the use of intelligent RTUs, was something 
that those skilled in the art with the assistance of a radio frequency 
IT specialist could have arrived at only with hindsight."


The content of the Patent Claims can be read at:

http://swpat.ffii.org/pikta/txt/ep/0664/061/

"7. A method of collecting student attendance data comprising:
   a) using a wireless radio-frequency link, downloading plural sets of
   student data from a central computer to plural portable data
   collection units, respectively;
   b) for each downloaded set of student data, entering corresponding
   student attendance data into the portable data collection units;
   c) detecting periodic wireless radio-frequency access control signals
   transmitted from said central computer to each of the plurality of
   portable units;
   d) using said wireless radio-frequency link, uploading both the
   downloaded student data and entered student attendance data from each
   of said portable data collection units in succession to said central
   computer in response to the periodic radio-frequency access control
   signals generated by said central computer and transmitted to said
   portable data collection units, each of said portable data collection
   units repeatedly delaying data transmission for a random duration
   until no other portable unit is simultaneously transmitting data".


Now *IMPORTANT* : I haven't seen the full text of the judgement; but 
given that claim 1 and claim 2 were considered obvious, presumably the 
steps of - (a) downloading the class lists (b) filling in the attendence 
and (c) the central unit then requesting an upload - presumably this 
sequence is also obvious, and claim 7 is being upheld on the basis of 
the random delays to prevent collisions.

This is ironic, because of course that is exactly how Ethernet deals 
with data collisions... which (see eg Wikipedia) was in turn inspired by 
  it having been the method invented to maintain throughput against 
data collisions on AlohaNet at the University of Hawaii in 1970 -- 
AlohaNet being a cross-campus academic **wireless** network!!!


Now, as I say, I haven't read the full judgment.  It's very important to 
know (i) whether Ethernet was cited as prior art; and (ii) whether 
AlohaNet was cited as prior art; and what the judge said about them.


As it stands, Claim 7 appears to rule out Register collection over WiFi 
-- *if* a central server is used to initiate an upload from each terminal.

But it would be very interesting to know if AlohaNet was explicitly 
cited as Prior Art for avoiding data collisions on *radio* networks -- 
if (as I suspect) this time it wasn't, then it is very likely that 
citing it in future would blow away any subsequent attempt by Bromcom to 
litigate based on Claim 7.