Amadeus S.A.S
[2016] APO 67
•11 October 2016
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Amadeus S.A.S [2016] APO 67
Patent Application: 2014262210
Title:Low cost travel ticketing
Patent Applicant: Amadeus S.A.S
Delegate: Dr N.R. Madsen
Decision Date: 11 October 2016
Hearing Date: Written submissions filed 7 September 2016
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objection during examination – manner of manufacture – airline ticketing in particular ticketing for low cost carrier airlines – substance of the invention is creating a light ticketing document number (based on an identity of the carrier and travel type) if a booking is requested for low cost travel, and if the booking is confirmed by a low cost carrier updating a passenger name record to include a travel confirmation which includes the light ticking document number – invention is not a manner of manufacture – application refused
Representation: Watermark Patent & Trade Mark Attorneys
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2014262210
Titles:Low cost travel ticketing
Patent Applicant: Amadeus S.A.S
Date of Decision: 11 October 2016
DECISION
The sole outstanding objection to the application is that the claimed invention is not for a manner of manufacture. I agree with the examiner that there is no patentable subject matter claimed.
I do not see any particular subject matter in the entirety of the specification that could confer patentability upon the claims if amended.
Therefore I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Patent application number 2014262210 was filed as a Paris Convention application on 12 November 2014, claiming priority from European and United States applications EP 13290281.8 and US 14/079035 respectively. The earliest claimed priority date is 13 November 2013. A request for examination was also filed on 12 November 2014.
As the request for examination was filed after 15 April 2013, substantive amendments to the Patents Act 1990 and Patents Regulations1991 brought about by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 and Intellectual Property Legislation Amendment (Raising the Bar) Regulation 2013, apply to the present patent application. This means that the patent applicant was provided 12 months from the date of the first examination report to gain acceptance, otherwise the application was to lapse.
The first examination report contained novelty and inventive step objections in addition to a manner of manufacture objection. A second examination report issued on 28 June 2016 with the sole objection that the claims were not directed to a manner of manufacture. Following the second examination report, and before the final date for acceptance of the application, the applicant requested on 6 July 2016 to be heard in regard to the examiner’s objection. The applicant filed written submissions on 7 September 2016.
While the present application at the time of writing this decision was in a state of lapse (as of 13 July 2016), I note that the provisions of subregulation 13.4(1)(g), to extend the period for acceptance to 3 months from the date of this decision, apply to the present application. This provision was introduced to the Regulations by the Raising the Bar amendments.
In brief, the present matter relates to whether a particular method for managing low cost airline travel inventory items is a manner of manufacture, and considers the objection raised by the examiner in their examination reports.
The specification
Before me for consideration is the specification comprising description, drawings and claims as filed on 12 November 2014. As discussed in the Background section of the description, the use of computer technology in the travel industry to manage and support reservations and associated data is prevalent. A particular use involves third parties such as travel agents or customers who often interface with a travel reservation system (for example a Global Distribution System or GDS) to book travel or related services. A customer or travel agent may use a computing device to initiate a session in a reservation system (for example via a reservation website or program) to book flights, hotels etc. Once a reservation is complete the reservation system may manage ticketing information for the booked items.
The invention is directed towards a system, method, and computer program product for managing and ticketing travel inventory items provided by low cost carriers. Paragraph [0017] of the description explains that a low cost carrier corresponds to a travel provider (such as an airline), that provides discounted fares on the basis that the products they offer come with fewer services and/or comforts. Contemporary examples of such carriers are Ryanair and EasyJet which are Irish and British based carriers respectively, and Jetstar which is based in Australia. Because of the low cost nature of the carrier, inventory systems associated with these carriers may limit transactions for reserving travel items to support a lower cost business model.
An example of the operation of reservation processes involving a lower cost business model may be one in which a travel item may be reserved in a transaction that requires a completed payment before a reservation is completed. For low cost carriers, the description notes at [0017] that it may be the case that no documents are issued to the reservation system, and instead a contract between the passenger and the low cost carrier may be emailed to the passenger. At [0021], more is explained of the difference between booking travel with a low cost carrier as opposed to a standard carrier:
“…the outcome of a reservation session for low cost carrier inventory system 108 (i.e., the booking of a travel inventory item of a low cost carrier) generally differs from the outcome of a reservation session for a standard inventory system 106. For example, low cost carriers generally provide "ticketless travel", where an International Air Transport Association (IATA) ticket number is not assigned for a booked low cost travel inventory item, and contract documents are not communicated to the reservation system 102 but are instead communicated to an email address of the traveller. Furthermore, the low cost carrier inventory system 108 may communicate only a record locator to a requesting system, where the record locator corresponds to a reservation record stored in the low cost carrier inventory system 108 for one or more reserved low cost travel inventory items. In addition, the types of transactions that a low cost carrier inventory system may process are limited based in part on the low cost model of the low cost carrier. For example, a low cost carrier inventory system 108 may include one or more terms in a response to a transaction request. Such terms may include, for example: a successful reply that indicates that a reservation has been created/updated in the low cost carrier inventory system 108 and payment authorization has been received, a failing reply that indicates that a requested reservation has not been created in the low cost carrier inventory system 108, and/or a pending reply that indicates that the low cost carrier inventory system 108 has not yet received a payment authorization status such that the reservation is not yet complete.
Figure 1 provides a schematic overview of the connectivity of a reservation system upon which the invention may be implemented, having inventory systems (be it low cost or otherwise) and a customer or agent using a travel reservation device. As described at [0018], communication maybe via the internet or any suitable communication network wherein the travel reservation device may be a personal computer, tablet computer, smart phone etc. In regard to system architecture the specification also adds at [0019]:
“…while the reservation system 102, inventory system 106, and/or low cost carrier inventory system 108 are described herein as separate entities, the invention is not so limited. In some embodiments, various hardware, software components, and/or sequences of operations described with respect to the reservation system 102, inventory system 106, and/or low cost carrier inventory system 108 may be implemented on the reservation system 102, inventory system 106, and/or low cost carrier inventory system 108. Furthermore, as will be appreciated, in some embodiments the reservation system 102, inventory system 106, and/or low cost carrier inventory system 108 may be components of a GDS.”
10. Based on a reservation request from a customer or agent, the reservation system of figure 1 may begin an inventory session using data from the reservation request. Here the reservation system interfaces with the relevant inventory system. In such a session, for example with a low cost carrier inventory system, a limited number of transactions will be supported (as discussed earlier).
11. At [0022] the specification describes issues whereby conventional reservation systems may not interface with both low cost carrier and standard inventory systems. This may cause a travel agent for example, to not use a reservation system to book travel items but instead revert directly to a dedicated carrier website. Such separate booking may lead to difficulties in managing data within a reservation system. At [0023] it is explained that a reservation system consistent with embodiments of the invention may be configured to interface with both low cost and standard inventory systems, and provide for consistent management of data.
12. Figure 2 depicts the aspects of a reservation system consistent with the described invention. Present is a reservation module 172 that may be configured to receive booking data from a travel reservation device. The ticketing module 174 may be generally configured to issue a ticket for a standard reserved travel booking. Conversely, for low cost travel bookings, a low cost carrier interface module 176 is configured to format transaction requests and to receive information from a low cost carrier inventory system. Significant to the invention is the light ticketing module 178. This light ticketing module is configured to issue tickets and manage reservations for low cost travel inventory items. In this sense, a light ticket may be a ticket generated by the reservation system for each travel item requested for a low cost carrier, whereby a number is associated with the light ticket (light ticket document number) which serves to allow management of the particular reservation at the reservation system. This light ticket is created because low cost carriers generally do not provide ticketing to a reservation system while standard carriers do. Also present is a database 180 for storing travel reservation records.
13. Figure 3 is a useful flowchart broadly depicting the invention described in the independent claims which is aimed at: generally improving computer based travel service booking (as identified at [0003]); and, as I understand, alleviating at least some of the issues that I have identified above. It illustrates the sequence of operations performed by the reservation system consistent with the described and claimed invention. A booking request 302 is received by the reservation system. The reservation system then determines whether the request is for a low cost travel item or a standard travel item. If the request is in relation to a low cost item then the reservation system generates a light ticketing document number at step 308. Following this, the system sends a request to the low cost carrier inventory system for commitment to the booking request (step 310). In addition to booking details this step may include sending payment information and contact details of a customer to the inventory system. A positive response is then received (step 312) by the reservation system. This positive response may indicate a successful booking and payment for the travel item being registered at the inventory system. The reservation system then updates records (step 314) which may include updating a passenger name record (PNR) to include a confirmed booking which includes a light ticketing document number.
The claims
14. The specification ends with 15 claims, three of which being independent. Each of the independent claims are directed to essentially the same subject matter, primarily differing in that these claims are specifically to a reservation method, a reservation system or a computer program product. For the purpose of brevity I will simply reproduce independent claim 1 which reads as follows:
A method for managing low cost carrier travel inventory items, the method comprising: receiving a booking request associated with a passenger name record from a travel reservation device at a reservation system;
in response to determining that the booking request corresponds to a travel inventory item of a low cost carrier, generating, with at least one processor of the reservation system, a light ticketing document number associated with the travel inventory item based at least in part on an identity of the low cost carrier and a type associated with the travel inventory item;
communicating a transaction request for the travel inventory item to an inventory system for the low cost carrier, the transaction request including form of payment information and contact information; and
in response to receiving a transaction response from the inventory system for the low cost carrier indicating a successful booking and a successful payment for the travel inventory item, updating, with the at least one processor, the passenger name record to include a confirmed booking for the travel inventory item including the light ticketing document number.
The examiner’s objection
15. The objection as to a lack of patentability in the examiner’s first examination report reads as follows:
“Claims 1 – 15 do not define a manner of manufacture within the meaning of Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990. From reading your application as a whole the substance of the alleged invention relates to a scheme of making travel arrangements that relies on data present in a repository. This is not patentable subject matter.
The claim(s) define(s) the use of a computer. However, the use of the computer is nothing more than the mere implementation of the scheme and the computer operates in the normal or expected way. The invention does not result in an improvement in the operation of, or effect of the use of, the computer. Consequently, as per Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150, the alleged invention is matter which is not patentable as it does not have an artificial effect falling within that concept as expressed in NRDC [1959] HCA 67.”
16. In the second examination report the examiner added:
“I am maintaining the objection (no. 1) from the previous report. With regard to your response, the computer is doing its normal generic function by determining a corresponding booking request or by communicating a transaction request. The application as a whole is still defines a scheme to manage a travel booking request. An inventory system is basically a records database with various fields [see description: para 0027, 0047]. Thus, the process of checking a corresponding record based on a user input would be construed as a computer carrying out its normal functionality. In this case the computer is just a tool and does not add substance to the idea. It is apparent from the whole specification that the alleged invention is based on “information maintained in a database”. The use of information stored in the data inventory to determine the booking request corresponding to a travel inventory item does not contribute towards the technicality or the ingenuity of the invention disclosed. In this instance the computer or the inventory system is just a storage means and is not integral to the invention. Therefore the substance of the invention still lies in the data related to travel reservations. This is not a patentable subject matter.”
17. In my decision I will address the written submissions made by the applicant and particularly focus upon submissions made with reference to the relevant case law.
The law
18. The High Court in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252 (NRDC), laid out the proper question for determination when one is considering patentable subject matter in the context of section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act which refers to a “manner of manufacture”. They stated at [269] that the correct question is:
“Is this a proper subject according to the principles which have developed for the application of s. 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?”
19. With this at the fore of their considerations in respect of a claim to a process for eradicating weed from a stretch of land, the High Court in NRDC described subject matter that would be considered patentable (at [275]):
“The point is that a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art ... that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour.”
20. In respect of the determination of patentability particularly in the context of computer related inventions, the law has been articulated of late to provide useful guidance. The two key judgements of the Full Federal Court involving computer implemented inventions are Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd (2015) 328 ALR 458 (RPL Central); (2015) 115 IPR 461 and Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents (2014) 227 FCR 378 (Research Affiliates).Principles expressed in those decisions are well summarised in the decision of delegate Dr Barker in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49 (Aristocrat). There the delegate, at [35], sets out relevant considerations for patentability of such inventions:
“I conclude that it is relevant to consider a range of matters. Without seeking to be exhaustive, these include:
·there must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information;
·is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature;
·does the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer;
·does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed;
·does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result;
·can it be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology;
·does the method merely require generic computer implementation;
·is the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea;
·is there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised;
·does the invention involve steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers; and
·does the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information.”
21. In addition to that identified by the delegate, RPL Central also discussed (at [100]), with reference to Research Affiliates, that:
“…there is a distinction between technological innovation which is patentable and business innovation which is not… although a business method may be the subject of letters patent.”
22. Also pertinent is that it is clear from both RPL Central and Research Affiliates, in addition to D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35 (Myriad), that the assessment as to whether a claimed invention is properly the subject of a patent (i.e. is a manner of manufacture) is one of substance over form. As per Myriad at [144]:
“Whatever words have been used, the matter must be looked at as one of substance and effect must be given to the true nature of the claim.”
23. An approach to assessing the substance of a claim for patentability rather than its literal form is well founded in the established case law. For example, in Virginia-Carolina Chemical Corp's Application [1958] RPC 35, Lloyd-Jacob J said at [37]:
“In considering whether or not an application discloses a patentable invention, it is proper that attention should be directed to the alleged contribution to the art rather than the form of words tentatively put forward as defining the invention.”
24. His honour added that consideration of manner of manufacture in this context involves an approach that:
“…would appear to necessitate an examination of the application documents as a whole to discover what, if any, contribution it contained…”
25. The approach also appears in A.E.W.’s Application (1924) 41 R.P.C. 529 where, in giving his decision regarding whether the claim constituted a manner of manufacture, Sir Henry Slessser S.G. says:
“In substance the invention sought to be patented is a colouring or some other method of indication on an odometer… The alleged invention essentially consists in the colouring of odometer wheels in the way which has been described.”
Consideration
The substance of the claims
26. I will focus my analysis upon the subject matter of the independent claims. In identifying their characterisation of the substance of the invention, the applicant argued that the examiner erred in suggesting that the substance was “a scheme of making travel arrangements that relies on data present in a repository” or was to “data related to travel reservations”. Instead the applicant suggests that:
“…when the specification is considered as a whole, the substance of the invention relates to a travel reservation system that is specifically configured in a technical way in order to manage travel inventory items associated with a low cost carrier.”
27. In this regard they also state:
“The present invention provides a reservation system that is specifically configured in a technical and in a new (non-normal) way to manage low cost travel ticketing.”
28. The law clearly articulates that determination of the substance of a claim involves a consideration of its alleged contribution to the art. This determination is to be made with a view to the specification as a whole and appears to involve an understanding of what is common general knowledge in the art. This naturally follows from the issues identified in RPL Central and Research Affiliates where one considering a claim’s patentability is invited to consider whether there is “generic computer implementation” or whether there is subject matter that is “foreign to the normal use of computers”.
29. The invention is clearly aimed at addressing limitations that relate to the fact that low cost carriers generally do not provide ticketing to reservation systems or for that matter, to customers. This means that the reservation systems may face difficulties in managing data. I now turn to the independent claims to consider their substance.
30. On the basis of the difficulties in the art and the manner in which the system of the invention is described, it appears entirely normal to receive a booking request associated with a passenger name record from a travel reservation device. This seems to me to simply represent the standard procedure for requesting a booking. It is also apparently normal to send a request from a reservation system to a low cost carrier system and to receive a response of successful booking (or otherwise) from a low cost carrier system. At this point, it is the lack of ticketing information sent from the low cost carrier to the reservation system that gives rise to the limitations the claimed invention seeks to overcome.
31. What remains, when considering the contribution of the claims after giving consideration to the normal function of ticketing systems involving low cost carriers, is a series of steps that are performed by the reservation system. The purpose of these steps is to create a means of information management by the reservation system. Identical steps are identified by the applicant in their submissions when they refer to the invention and its consistency with described embodiments. These steps are as follows in the words of claim 1:
·In response to determining that the booking request corresponds to a travel inventory item of a low cost carrier, generating, with at least one processor of the reservation system, a light ticketing document number associated with the travel inventory item based at least in part on an identity of the low cost carrier and a type associated with the travel inventory item; and
·In response to receiving a transaction response from the inventory system for the low cost carrier indicating a successful booking and a successful payment for the travel inventory item, updating, with the at least one processor, the passenger name record to include a confirmed booking for the travel inventory item including the light ticketing document number.
32. This subject matter is well represented in figure 3. Relevant steps identified above that are present in figure 3 are: the determination that a booking corresponds to a low cost item 304; generation of light ticketing document number 308; receive commit response 312; and following from the commit response, updating travel records 314. Each of these steps is performed at the reservation system.
33. Figure 3, as a flow chart, clearly shows that the alleged contribution of the invention is entirely in relation to decisions and records made by a reservation system. In this sense, it is clear that there is no particular system architecture involved in the substance of the invention, and this is reinforced by text of the specification identified above at [8] which states:
“…while the reservation system 102, inventory system 106, and/or low cost carrier inventory system 108 are described herein as separate entities, the invention is not so limited.”
34. I also note that the presence of computer function in the features identified above at [30] is to do no more than to generically implement the steps. Here the reservation system simply: determines that a booking request is of the low cost type; generates a light ticketing document number; and then in response to receiving confirmation of a booking (receiving a confirmation being normal procedure in low cost reservation systems) updates a passenger name record with certain information.
35. It follows that, to me, the alleged contribution of the invention is not in relation to a system of particular architecture, but to a series of steps performed by a reservation entity that may improve data management. Hence I find the substance of the independent claims to be creating a light ticketing document number (based on an identity of the carrier and travel type) if a booking is requested for low cost travel, and if the booking is confirmed by a low cost carrier updating a passenger name record to include a travel confirmation which includes the light ticking document number. Broadly speaking, this subject matter is consistent with the examiner’s characterisation of the subject matter as managing travel reservation data in a repository.
Is the substance of the claimed invention patentable subject matter?
Technical in nature
36. A first general submission of the applicant is that the present invention solves a range of technical problems. I have already discussed the issues with the prior art above but I will again summarise the problems that are suggested by the applicant to be technical. The problems stem from the fact that booking processes for low cost carrier travel inventory items differ from standard booking processes. In this regard low cost travel is often ticketless, and without ticket information reservation systems can find it difficult to manage and process bookings because limited data is available. Further, due to the differences in process, a reservation system might not interface with both standard and low cost inventory systems.
37. Importantly, I see no basis to consider that these problems are in any way technical. On the face of the specification, there is nothing to suggest that the problem lies in a physical computer system or system architecture as such. The problems identified by the applicant appear to me to be pure process problems in the context of what information is provided and available to a reservation entity. In other words, the problem doesn’t lie in any physically constructed system or device, but instead in the rules of interaction between business entities and subsequent issues of information management. Here the problem addressed by the alleged contribution is one of business process.
38. The solution to these problems is for a reservation entity to create information (light ticketing document number) and to update another piece of information (passenger name record) when appropriate, to include a booking confirmation and the light ticketing number. I see no technical characteristic provided by this solution. To me the substance of the invention is a scheme which creates abstract information and uses this information to improve mere steps of business information recording. Of note is the fact that the substance of the invention is devoid of reference to particular physical or material system characteristics.
39. In accordance with the above discussion it appears to me that a technical problem is not solved within or outside a computer. I see no technical characteristics in the substance of the claimed solution itself. As such the alleged contribution of the claimed invention is not technical in nature. There is no specifically configured physical or material reservation system claimed in substance that could potentially render the claims as possessing technical subject matter. Instead, the substance of the invention appears to be a scheme merely generically implemented in a computer. The scheme is one which merely lies in non-technical information management which may be regarded as business innovation of a reservation entity. While the substance of the invention itself may be “non-normal” in the words of the applicant, it is not subject matter of a technical nature to confer patentability.
Practical and useful effects
40. The applicant provided arguments suggesting that the invention achieved practical and useful effects seemingly in invocation of the case law of NRDC. Here they stated that:
“Through the present invention, any differences between the managing and reserving of standard travel inventory items and of the low cost travel inventory items appear transparent to a user (i.e. a reservation agent) using a travel reservation device to interface with a reservation system. The present invention allows a user to perform standard ticketing transactions with the reservation system in a reservation session on a travel reservation device, and the reservation system can dynamically interface with the low cost carrier inventory system to book the low cost travel inventory item. We refer to paragraphs [0023] and [0044].
A reservation system can collect and report reservation and sales related information for reserved low cost travel inventory items for a reservation agent in addition to reserved standard travel inventory items. The present invention provides a reservation system that includes an integrated interface that facilitates the reservation and management of standard travel inventory items and low cost travel inventory items.”
41. I see nothing in the claim to suggest that the reservation system incudes any particular integrated interface or data management. I also fail to see anything in the independent claims to suggest that the system performs both standard and low cost travel bookings. In any event, whether or not the claims include such functionality would not affect my finding regarding patentability. In this sense I reiterate that there is no particular computer system architecture created by these features and it is merely the case that the claims address a problem related only to business processes. There are no effects present that could be regarded as practical or useful in the context of the established case law, including NRDC. In this regard the substance of the invention is not technical innovation but is clearly business innovation.
Other submissions regarding examiner objections
42. A number of additional submissions of the applicant make reference to the examiner’s objections. For completeness I will also address these specific submissions.
43. A first submission disagrees with the examiner’s characterisation that “the computer is doing its normal generic function by determining a corresponding booking request or by communicating a transaction request”. In this regard the applicant points to the features of the substance of the invention that I have identified above and states that:
“… even if the claims are considered to require generic computer implementation, it was not normal (at the Priority Date) to configure a travel reservation system to interface with a low cost carrier interface system as defined in the present claims… the invention involves ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised and the invention involves steps that a foreign to the normal use of the computer.”
44. As discussed above, the substance of the invention would appear to be an unconventional scheme. However, in considering what may constitute generic implementation the applicant appears to mischaracterise the relevant test. Here, one should carefully consider whether there is any ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised. I accept that the present invention must be considered to be “not normal” in the context of what the computer is programed to do (as suggested by the applicant), but it is clearly not the case that there is anything unique about the particular way the computer is doing this. The invention does not result in an improved computer as such. It is just an improvement to a non-technical process of data creation and modification that one could characterise as abstract. This is in contrast to the substance of the invention before the delegate in Aristocrat which was considered to result in an improved computer interface. It appears that the examiner’s objection was aimed at this understanding.
45. A second point of attack of the applicant’s submission in respect of examination objections refers to the examiner’s suggestion that “[i]n this case the computer is just a tool and does not add substance to the idea”. They argue that the use of a computer implementing the claimed invention is integral to the claim and is clearly described throughout the specification. The applicant then makes reference to computer systems and program design throughout the specification arguing that the involvement of a computer is “inextricably linked and integral to the claimed invention”.
46. It is obvious that a computer is an essential and inextricable aspect of the claimed invention. However, importantly this is so as a matter of form. For the reasons already discussed, the computer system is not part of the substance of the claim. In accordance with RPL Central at [104], the fact alone that an invention cannot be performed outside a computer does not assist in rendering the use of computers an aspect of the substance of the invention that may be considered patentable. On this basis I agree with the examiner’s characterisation.
47. Finally, the applicant submits the present invention resides in technological innovation and not in business innovation pointing to the examiner’s characterisation of the substance of the invention:
“The examiner alleges that 'the application as a whole is [sic] still defines a scheme to manage a travel booking request' and that 'the substance of the invention still lies in the data related to travel reservations' - the Applicant respectfully disagrees.”
48. It is clear that I have dealt with this issue above when considering the technical nature of the invention. While the examiner might have more precisely characterised or even defined the alleged contribution of the claimed invention, it remains that the substance of the invention is a scheme which creates abstract information and uses this information to improve mere steps of business information recording. There is no aspect of the substance of the invention that could be characterised as a technical contribution. There is no technical problem. The contribution is entirely in respect of business processes of a reservation entity that fall outside the realm of patentability.
Conclusion
49. I find that the independent claims are not directed to a manner of manufacture. There are no submissions regarding specific dependent claims and I see no basis that these claims might add any patentable subject matter to the substance of the invention. Hence all of the present claims are not patentable. Similar can be said in relation to the remainder of the subject matter contained in the specification.
50. Hence I refuse the application.
Dr N.R. Madsen
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
0
5
0