Block, Inc.
[2023] APO 34
•14 June 2023
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Block, Inc. [2023] APO 34
Patent Application: 2020204343
Title:Animation management in applications
Patent Applicant: Block, Inc.
Delegate:Neil Miller
Decision Date: 14 June 2023
Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 9 September 2022
Catchwords: PATENTS - section 45 – Examiner Objections – Inventive Step –Manner of Manufacture – substance of the invention – disabling animations – Point of Sale – POS – user experience – user interface – processing speed – arrangement of information – animation management – application not directed to a manner of manufacture – application refused
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: FB Rice Pty Ltd
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2020204343
Title:Animation management in applications
Patent Applicant: Block, Inc.
Date of Decision: 14 June 2023
DECISION
The examiners objection for lack of inventive step is unstainable.
The claims do not define a manner of manufacture. I am unable to find patentable material in the specification.
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Australian patent application 2020204343 (“the application”) in the name of Block, Inc. was filed on 29 June 2020. The application is a divisional application of Australian patent application 2016381571 (“the parent”) filed on 27 December 2016 in the name of Square Inc. Square, Inc subsequently changed its name to Block, Inc. (“the applicant”). The parent claims priority from US patent application 14/982,994 filed 29 December 2015.
A request for examination was filed on 17 July 2020. The first examination report issued on 15 July 2021. The report raised objections for lack of patentable subject matter and lack of inventive step.
Following a response from the applicant, a second examination report was issued on 3 March 2022. The second examination report maintained the objections relating to lack of patentable subject matter and lack of inventive step. The applicant filed a response to the second report on 12 July 2022. Prior to any consideration of the response by the examiner the applicant requested a hearing.
The final date for acceptance of the application was 15 July 2022, however paragraph 13.4(1)(g) of the Patent Regulations 1991 (“the Regulations”) is available to extend the time for gaining acceptance to 3 months (or longer if appropriate under sub-regulation 13.4(3)) from the date of the present decision.
The Specification
The detailed description
At paragraph [0001] some background is provided as to the field of the invention. The specification notes that the usage of mobile devices within society is ubiquitous and that such devices have been utilised to conduct various activities such as acting as point of sales devices for merchants. Such functionality is typically implemented by way of one or more applications contained on the mobile device. These applications include various animations, such as drop-down menus, pictures, motions and sounds. The animations provide enhanced user experience by including additional information in an aesthetically pleasing manner.
The provision of such animations may come at a cost as the rendering of such animations requires additional resources thereby potentially slowing processing speeds. So, while the use of such animations may be desirable in a mobile point of sales (POS) device, they may be too costly to implement where a merchant wants to conduct transactions at a high rate.
At paragraphs [0010]-[0012] the specification briefly discusses a number techniques and arrangements for managing animations on a computing device. The discussion at paragraph [0010] focuses on a particular embodiment of the invention, this being a point-of-sale application. The point-of-sale application may dynamically adjust the animations including the number of animations and the graphics associated with such animations to enable the processing of information at a faster and/or slower rate. The adjustment of the animation can be based on a number of factors including an average rate of transactions, rate of recognized input events, a type of user, an experience level of a user, a time of day, a time of year etc.
The use of user profiles to control or adjust animation is briefly discussed in paragraph [0011]. More specifically the profile may specify or designate criteria that defines base line animation level applied within the application. In some instances, the user profile may be utilised to adjust the animation level based on a particular users experience level i.e. a new employee may be provided with more animations while an experienced employee can be provided with less animations.
Paragraph [0012] summaries the purported benefits resulting from the adjustment of animations in accordance with embodiments of the invention. More specifically it is stated that the adjustment of animations as described may increase the efficiency of applications running on a mobile device or enhance a user experience by recognizing a desire to increase or decrease a processing speed.
10. The remainder of the detailed description focuses on a number of exemplary implementations relating to the use of the instant invention within a POS application. The general processes employed by the instant invention to adjust animations is best understood with reference to figures 4 and 5. Figure 4 (reproduced below) depicts a sequence of operations for managing animations associated with an application running on a computing device in accordance with an embodiment of the invention. At 402 an application’s user interface (UI) is presented on the display of the device. The UI includes one or more animations, the animations being displayed at a first animation level. The specification then discusses at paragraph [0065] that the user interface may comprise a number of conventional interface components such as touch screens, keyboards or a mouse to permit the user to interact with the application. The use of various interface techniques to receive user inputs is then discussed at paragraph [0067] with respect to step 404 of figure 4. The discussion at paragraph [0067] equates to nothing more than standard human computer interaction utilising well established input paradigms.
11. Additional information regarding the first animation level is provided at paragraph [0066]. More specifically the first animation level is a baseline animation level where the number of animations presented is pre-set based on a number of factors such as merchant type, employee profile or other factors. Various types of animations are then enumerated such as sliding, fading in, fading out, dropping down, raising up, rotating an icon, displaying menus, sounds, or other information pertaining to the function and/or aesthetics of the application and/or the applet.
12. At step 406 a determination is made on whether an increase in processing speed is required. The specification then states that in various examples the determination may be based on the device monitoring one or more parameters. Examples of the types of parameters that could be utilised for the determination are outlined in paragraph [0068]. Such parameters include calculating a transaction rate, determining an input event rate, determining that input is from a component of the device and/or a second device, determining device is operating in a known period of high usage e.g. known period of high transaction activity (peak periods) etc. Paragraphs [0069] and [0070] provide further detail on the manner in which the decision is made to either maintain or decrease animation levels. Namely the determination is made on the basis of comparing the monitored parameter against a threshold which may be determined by the user such as a merchant, the application developer or the application service provider. Where the parameter does not exceed the threshold, the level of animation is maintained (step 408, figure 4). When the parameter exceeds the threshold, the level of animation is decreased this may include disabling one or more animations associated with the applications (step 410 figure 4).
13. A similar process to that utilised in figure 4 is presented in figure 5 (reproduced below). The application is initialised with a baseline level of animation set within the user interface (step 502 figure 5). The user then interacts with the user interface to input data relating to the transaction (step 504 figure 5- processing the transaction via merchant).
14. The key distinctions between the embodiment of figure 4 and that of figure 5 resides in the calculation of a specific parameter, which is then utilised in the adjustment of the animation level. As discussed at paragraph [0076] the transaction rate is calculated over a pre-set period such as 5, 10, 15 or 30 minute interval or an interval of time as determined by the user such as a merchant, the application developer or the application service provider (step 506 figure 5). On the limited information provided it appears that the transaction rate is simply the aggregate of the transactions conducted within the merchant’s premises over the interval.
15. The adjustment of the animation level per the embodiment of figure 5 is then discussed at paragraphs [0079]-[0083]. Firstly, the transaction rate is compared to a threshold rate for the application and/or applet (step 508 figure 5). If the transaction rate is above the threshold rate the animation level is adjusted by disabling on or more of the animations associated with the application (step 512 figure 5). That is the level of animation is lowered when the transaction rate exceeds the pre-set threshold rate. Once the animation rate has been adjusted the device then determines whether the transaction rate has dropped below the threshold rate. If the transaction rate still exceeds the threshold rate the device maintains the current lower level of animation (step 516 figure 5). If it is determined that the transaction rate has dropped below the threshold rate the device adjust the animation level to the initial animation or baseline level (step 518 figure 5).
16. Figure 6 details the use of a transaction processing service that collects transaction data from a POS device. The transaction processing service then calculates the transaction rate over a specified time interval. If the transaction rate exceeds a threshold rate the transaction processing service sends instructions to the POS device to disable one or more animations associated with the application and/or an applet of the application. Thus, in the embodiment discussed in relation to figure 6 the decision to disable one or more animations occurs external to the POS device.
17. The discussion provided in respect of figures 2 and 7 centres around the hardware of the point-of-sale device. The devices as shown in figures 2 and 7 include a processor, a power supply, a display, input/output components and a memory. The memory stores the POS device’s operating system and the necessary applications to enable the device to perform POS functions. The memory may also store other data such as a merchant profile, transaction information etc. The device also includes a number of additional modules such as a location component, reader, animation module and translation module. The hardware as discussed in respect of figures 2 and 7 is typical of such mobile devices.
18. The discussion at paragraphs [0042]-[0055] with respect to the implementation of the animation module of the device of figure 2 is of note. These passages discuss how the animation module can adjust the level of animation within the merchant application based on a number of factors such as peak time, transaction rate, users’ level of experience, merchant input setting, merchant type, level of I/O inputs etc. While these passages provide detail on several scenarios under which the animation module may determine when to vary the level of animation the net effect is the same as that discussed above in relation to figures 4-6. Namely the level of animation provided is varied from a baseline level to a second level when a particular metric exceeds a threshold value.
19. With respect to the figures 1A and 1B, these depict similar operations to that that discussed above in relation to figures 4 and 5. In the case of the arrangements of figures 1A and 1B it is stated that animations are disabled on a decision to increase the applications processing speed. From a reading of paragraphs [0019]-[0022] the adjustment of the animations is based on predetermined user-action criteria such as known peak busy periods (i.e. use of historical data), a rate of input events, a rate of transactions, an average time between transactions, a change in sub-user etc. The application obtains or otherwise determines a specific parameter, measure or metric be it a date, a rate etc. This measure is then compared to a predetermined value (i.e. threshold or trigger value), with the animations associated with the application or applet being adjusted from a baseline rate depending on whether the monitored metric is above or below the set threshold.
20. What is clear from the discussion in relation to figures 1A and 1B is that the application does not measure or determine a processing speed associated with the application or POS device. In fact, the specification fails to provide any detail on a method or process concerning the measurement or determination of an application’s processing speed. Rather the focus of the specification is on the adjustment of the level of animation associated with an application based on a particular metric. It is this adjustment of the animation level that is said to lead to improved processing speeds.
21. The effect of adjustment of the animation level is best understood with reference to figure 3 (reproduced below). Figure 3 shows a user interface having a first user interface instance where the animations are enabled (302 of figure 3) and a second user interface where various animations have been disabled (304 of figure 3).
22. As can be seen both user interface instances present the same information to the user. The primary difference between the user interface instance resides in the manner in which the information presented or otherwise arranged. In the first user interface instance the various menus are displayed using one animation affects, only after a selection is made in the preceding menu. For instance, on selecting the Latte option the milk menu is displayed using a sliding animation etc. In the second user interface instance are displayed as a single screen.
23. As discussed at paragraph [0063] of the specification the effect of disabling the animation is that time for processing the transaction with the second user interface instance is less than that of the first user interface instance. Utilising the second interface instance requires less user inputs to process the order 3 taps to process (thus the whole process of ordering occurs faster, and this equates with the broad idea of increased processing speed). By contrast to process the order in the first user interface instance requires 4 taps and 3 animations.
24. What is apparent from the discussion provided in relation to figure 3 is that in each user interface instance, the user is presented with the same set of menus which allow the user to input various details relating to the transaction. The user interacts with these menus in a conventional manner i.e. taps, clicks etc. to enter the data relating to the transaction. The only advantage to disabling the animation appears to be a reduction in the number of interactions or time required to input the data, and this is what I broadly understand to be meant by an increase in processing speed. In the case where animations are enabled in the first user interface instance the user must wait the for the sub menus to be displayed following an animation before the appropriate selection can be made. By contrast in the second user instance all the menus are rendered simultaneously enabling the details of the transaction to be entered in less time than required in the first user instance.
25. It is appreciated on a review of figure 3, that the animations provide a particular aesthetic to the UI. However, irrespective of whether the animations are present, the underlying functioning of the UI is unchanged, the user is still required to enter the details of the transaction via the UI in a conventional manner. The only effect of disabling animations associated with the user interface when a specific condition is met, is the prioritisation processing resources for other tasks. It is also apparent that processing speed of the device is inherently unchanged, rather processing resource are merely freed up allowing these resources to be assigned to the task of processing transactions.
26. Finally the detailed description finishes with a number of exemplary clauses at paragraphs [0101]-[0124]. The language of these passages mirror that of the claims, which I will discuss below.
The claims
27. The claims under consideration are the claims as filed on 29 June 2020. The claims number 15 in total, of these claims 1, 6 and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A merchant point-of-sale (POS) device comprising:
a display;
one or more processors;
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions executable by the one or more processors, wherein the instructions program the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:
presenting, on the display, a user interface of an application configured to facilitate payment transactions between a merchant associated with the merchant POS device and one or more customers, the user interface including one or more animations;
receiving a plurality of inputs via the user interface of the application, the
plurality of inputs being associated with the payment transactions;
calculating a number of transactions processed over a first period of time; determining that the number of transactions is above a threshold number; and based at least in part on the determining that the number of transactions is above the minimum threshold number, disabling at least one of the one or more animations of the user interface to increase a processing speed of the merchant POS device.
28. Claim 1 is clearly directed to a POS device that is provided with an application that presents a user interface to facilitate a transaction, the interface displaying one or more animations. The POS device receives a number of inputs relating to payment transactions via the interface. The device then calculates a specific metric (number of transactions over a first period) and then compares this metric to a threshold value. In the event that the calculated metric exceeds the threshold value the POS device disables at least one of the animations. The desired effect of disabling at least one of the animations is then stated i.e. to increase a processing speed of the POS device. Put another way the POS device automatically disables at least one of the animations when a particular metric determined by the device exceeds a pre-set threshold.
29. While on the whole claim 1 can be construed in a relatively straight forward manner, I do have issue with the phrase “increase a processing speed of the POS device”; it is not apparent as to what is the nature of the processing speed of the device which is improved. Is it the overall processing speed of the device, an increase only in the graphics processing, an increase in input processing, or an increase in the processing speed of the application or a combination thereof.
30. As I have noted above the specification make numerous references to the processing speed of the application. Thus, it seems reasonable that the reference to “increase in a processing speed” as claimed should be read as an improvement of the processing speed of the application. As I have noted what I broadly understand is meant by this is that there is a reduction in the number of interactions or time required to input data into the application. That is to say the increase in processing speed of the application merely equates to a reduction in the time to perform data entry via the applications user interface.
31. Ultimately, I do not believe that the use of the phrase “increase in processing speed” greatly impacts on the interpretation of claim 1, as the phrase is concerned with the perceived benefit that results from the reduction in the animation levels following the process steps as recited in the claim. I will note, however, in passing that statements of perceived or promised benefits such as this within in a claim could give rise to issues under section 18(1)(c) of the Act.
32. Claims 2-5 recite additional limitations the relating to the manner in which the animations are disabled. Claim 2 recites calculating the number of transactions over a second period of time and adjusting the level of animations based on this calculation. Claims 3 and 5 concern the setting of initial number of animations and the type of animation being utilised. Claim 4 is directed to the use of one or more applets and the disabling of animation in one applet while the animation level is maintained in the other applet.
33. Claims 6 is directed to a method for adjusting the number of animations, claim 13 is the corresponding system claim and recites similar limitations. The language of claims 6 and 13 differs to that of claim 1. Claim 6 is reproduced below:
6. A method comprising:
presenting, on a display, a user interface of an application, the user interface including one or more animations;
receiving, by a merchant point-of-sale device, a plurality of inputs via the user interface of the application;
determining to increase a processing speed of the application based at least in part on the plurality of inputs;
based at least in part on the determining to increase the processing speed of the application, disabling at least one of the one or more animations of the user interface.
34. As in the case of claim 1, claims 6 and 13 are relatively simple to construe - the claims are directed to a method or system wherein a user interface on a point-of-sale device is presented to a user with the interface including one or more animations. The user is able to enter a plurality of inputs via the user interface. At least one of the animations is disabled if it is determined that an increase in processing speed of the application is required based on the inputs provided via the interface. At their broadest claims 6 and 13 concern disabling animations based on one or more inputs received via a user interface
35. On a review of claims 6 and 13, I have some concerns as to whether the claims meet the requirements of section 40(3) of the Patents Act 1990 (“the Act”) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (“the Raising the Bar Act”). Both claims recite determining to increase a processing speed of the application based at least in part on the plurality of inputs. The claims do not provide any indication as to how this determination is made. As I have noted above the specification makes it clear that the determination to disable one or more animations is based on the comparison of a particular metric to a threshold or trigger value. Moreover, the specification does not discuss any process for the measurement or determination of an application’s processing speed or utilising this as a measure for disabling animations within the user interface. Consequently, the claims seemingly lack a number of key features that are required to perform the invention and thus do not appear to be properly supported as required under s40(3) of the Act. A similar issue is also present for claim 11 which concerns the converse operation (i.e. enabling animations).
36. Dependent claims 7-8 and 14-15 concern the manner in which the determination to disable the animations is made. The additional features as recited in these claims align with various embodiments discussed in the specification and would seemingly rectify the support issue identified above. Claim 12 concerns the implementation of specific animation effects.
37. Finally, I note that claim 10 recites that the application is configured to facilitate payment transactions between the merchant and their customers. No additional detail on how the processing of payments is facilitated is expressed within the claim. As noted above the specification discusses the processing of a transaction using conventional mechanisms. Appling a common-sense approach I can reasonably interpret claim 10 as meaning that the application accepts payment information and passes this information to a payment service provided to effect settlement of the transaction.
The Examiner’s Objections
38. In the first examination report the examiner asserted that the claimed invention was not directed to a manner of manufacture within the meaning of the Act and that the invention so far as claimed lacked an inventive step. The objections were maintained in the second report following a response from the applicant.
39. In relation to the finding of a lack of inventive step the examiner sought to rely on the disclosure of US 9105026 (“D1”). D1 in the examiner’s opinion failed to disclose calculating the number of transactions and determining if the number of transactions was above a threshold and if so, disabling at least one of the one or more animations of the user interface. These features however were considered to be common knowledge in the art and as a consequence the invention as claimed would be obvious to one of skill in the art. As was explained in the second report two additional documents “Speed up your Android by adjusting animation settings” (“D2”) and EP 2590391 (“D3”) were cited as examples of the common general knowledge as follows:
“…D2, and for that matter D3, are only used as mere examples of common general knowledge in the art. The knowledge of achieving an enhanced user experience resulting in better/faster device performance by running fewer animations/applications was abundantly common at the priority date”.
40. The examiner in the second report again stated that the difference between D1 and the claimed invention resided in features that were common general knowledge in the art. More specifically the examiner reasoned as follows:
“It was common general knowledge in the art at the priority date of the current application that running a plurality of animations and/or applications simultaneously on a computing/mobile device results in decreased performance of the device, which directly results in a reduced user experience. It was equally well-known at the priority date of the current application that better device/application performance can be readily achieved by reducing the number of applications/animations running simultaneously. This in turn results in improved user experience. The current application merely automates this process by using a pre-determined (threshold) number of transactions to make the choice of disabling an animation.”
41. With respect to the issue of patentable subject matter the examiner was of the view that the present application amounts to nothing more than instructions for carrying out an information processing scheme. In the reasoning provided in the second report, the examiner sought to address a number of points advanced in the applicant’s response to the first report. Notably the examiner stated:
“…It is clear from a fair reading of the specification that any enhancement of the user experience is based on the implementation of the scheme/rules rather than any improvement to the POS device. There is no technological advancement to either the POS device or the interface. The perceived enhancement is purely based on a management decision (i.e. rules) of how the available processing power of the POS is distributed between displaying animations or processing transactions. There is no increase in the overall processing power or technological improvement to the POS device. The efficient use of processing power by either prioritising and/or disabling certain applications is well-known in the art….
…The substance of the invention lies in rules (or a scheme) based on various inputs (threshold number), to enable or disable one or more animations on a display screen….
… the alleged technical steps of the claimed invention appear to involve only well-known computer implementation and therefore cannot be regarded as the substance of the claimed invention.”
42. In essence the examiner’s position with respect to manner of manufacture is that the substance of the invention amounts to instructions to carry out an information processing scheme. Moreover, the scheme is merely implemented through logistical rules using nothing more than the generic abilities of a computer.
The Applicant’s Submissions
43. The applicant’s written submissions firstly deal with the issue of inventive step. I will address the applicant’s submission on this issue in more detail below. A summary of the key issues raised by the applicant in respect of the inventive step objection are as follows:
· The examiner has improperly characterised the problem to be solved.
· D1 fails to disclose a number of salient features of the claim.
· The disclosure of D2 and D3 fail to remedy the deficiencies of D1.
· There is nothing in disclosure D1 that would motivate or otherwise lead a skilled person to disable animations in manner as claimed.
· D1 teaches away from the claimed invention.
44. The applicant’s submissions with respect to manner of manufacture starts by discussing whether the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. The applicant argues that there is a technological improvement to the POS device, being that there is an improved use of processing power for an enhanced experience thereby providing an improved POS device.
45. The applicant then points out that the claimed invention is clearly more than a mere scheme, arguing the invention concerns a specific set of steps disabling at least one of the one or more animations of the user interface to increase a processing speed of the merchant POS device. Such an implementation, it was argued, is not based on mere “management rules” or on a design choice, but was devised to produce a particular technical effect. Moreover, it was suggested that the invention as claimed in the independent claims resides in the computerisation of a specific implementation and therefore defines a manner or manufacture. The particular computerisation solving a technical problem of how to provide an improved POS device with an improved user interface.
46. The applicant also submits that there is nothing in the present application that can be described as a business or financial scheme. Rather they suggest that the claimed invention relates to improving the functioning of a computer by distributing processing power in an automated way. It was argued that the invention as claimed cannot exist outside a computer but is integrally tied to computer technology. In advancing this line of reasoning the applicant seeks to distinguish the subject matter of the present application from that considered in authorities such as Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177 (“RPL”) i.e. the invention is not a business method that has been simply put into a computer in order to implement the business method using the computer for its well-known and understood functions.
47. The applicant’s submissions also focus on the characterisation of the substance of the invention, which the applicant argued was as follows:
“…The substance or ingenuity of the claimed invention resides in the recognising that by disabling animation(s) of the user interface of the POS device if the number of transactions being processed over a given period of time exceeds a threshold, an improved POS device would be provided – not only one having increased processing speed, but one better capable of automatically adapting to actual processing burden. As processing a transaction places a relatively higher burden on the processor than other actions such as entering items for sale or scrolling through menu items, using the number of transactions as a measure of use may provide a better balance between processing speed and user experience than using some other measures.
This is clearly a technical solution to ta technical problem which constitutes a manner of manufacture...”
48. Finally, the applicant advances that the subject matter of the instant application is similar to that considered in Apple, Inc. [2019] APO 32 (“Apple”). The decision in Apple concerns reusing animations for display to a user in order to generate varied presentations while using less memory. The substance of the invention was found to be an interface which, upon detection of a user input, is designed to generate and display a second user interface object and a third user interface object in the specific manner described (per Apple at [44]). The applicant then states that as the present application relates to similar subject matter, being a method of disabling animations to enable a technical advantage to be achieved, it is submitted that a similar conclusion should be reached as in Apple.
49. I also note that the applicant in their submissions refers to the decisions of the high court in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc (“Myriad”) [2015] HCA 35 and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (“Aristocrat ’22”) concerning the proper approach to the characterisation of the invention. I will address the principles outlined in these cases as they apply in this matter below.
50. In summary the applicant’s position is that the substance of the invention when properly characterised is directed to a technical solution to a technical problem of how to provide an improved POS device with an improved user interface. The applicant argues that the invention provides an improved POS device that best balances the distribution of available processing power of a POS device between displaying animations and processing transactions to provide an enhanced user experience.
Inventive Step
51. The statutory basis for inventive step for this opposition is set out at s7(2) and s7(3) of the Act as it stood after commencement of the Raising the Bar Act, and is reproduced below:
(2) For the purposes of this Act, an invention is to be taken to involve an inventive step when compared with the prior art base unless the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed (whether in or out of the patent area) before the priority date of the relevant claim, whether that knowledge is considered separately or together with the information mentioned in subsection (3).
(3) The information for the purposes of subsection (2) is:
(a) any single piece of prior art information; or
(b) a combination of any 2 or more pieces of prior art information that the skilled person mentioned in subsection (2) could, before the priority date of the relevant claim, be reasonably expected to have combined.
52. The question of obviousness has been extensively considered by the Courts. In particular Aickin J. stated in Wellcome Foundation Ltd. v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty. Ltd. [1981] HCA 12 at [45]; [1981] HCA 12; (1981) 148 CLR 262 at 286 (“Wellcome Foundation”):
“The test is whether the hypothetical addressee faced with the same problem would have taken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not.”
53. In Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 59; 212 CLR 411 at [53] (“Aktiebolaget Hassle”), the High Court accepted the approach taken in Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd [1970] RPC 157 at [187] where Graham J posed the reformulated Cripps question:
“Would the notional research group at the relevant date, in all the circumstances, ... directly be led as a matter of course to try [the claimed combination] in the expectation that it might well produce a [useful or better result]?”
54. As noted, the examiner contends that the invention so far as claimed lacks an inventive step in light of the disclosure of D1 in view of the common general knowledge in the art. D2 and D3 were cited as examples of what was considered to be common general knowledge in the art.
Assessment of Inventive Step
55. It is not in dispute that D1 fails to disclose the following features of claim 1:
· calculating a number of transactions processed over a first period of time;
· determining that the number of transactions is above a threshold number; and
· based at least in part on the determining that the number of transactions is above the minimum threshold number, disabling at least one of the one or more animations
56. The applicant’s issue with the inventive step objection is concerned with the examiner’s application of the statutory test. Notably they argue that examiner has not established that D2 and D3 were common general knowledge in the art. They add that even if D2 and D3 are considered to be CGK they do not remedy the deficiencies of D1. Moreover, the applicant suggests that there is nothing in the teaching of D1 that would motivate or otherwise lead the skilled person to the claimed invention as a matter of course given the CGK.
Consideration of D1 in view of the CGK
57. It is appropriate at this stage to consider the disclosure of D1. D1 is concerned with the implementation of a rolling interface transaction on a mobile device (D1 abstract and Col. 2 lines 10-12). Under the arrangement of D1 a first interface instance is displayed on the mobile device. On detecting motion of the mobile device, the first interface instance is gradually phased out to a second interface instance. The phasing out being via an animated rolling transition effect where one part of the display area occupied by the first interface instance is replace by a part of the second interface instance. The animated effect transitioning between the first and second interface is synchronised to the direction and speed of the motion of the device (D1 Col. 2 lines- Col.3 line 30 and Col. 4 line 48- Col.6 line 7).
58. D1 is therefore concerned with the transition between user interfaces using a rolling transition which is tied to the rotation of the device. This rolling transition allows for a smooth transition between the interfaces and obviates the need for canned animation sequences common to conventional user interfaces (D1 Col. line 26-35). Nowhere in D1 does it discuss cancelling or disabling animations within an application. Rather D1 implements a particular animation effect as part of the transition from one user interface to another. The speed at which the animation effect is rendered is tied to the motion of the device.
59. Here I am drawn to the following comments of the examiner in the second report, notably:
…It was equally well-known at the priority date of the current application that better device/application performance can be readily achieved by reducing the number of applications/animations running simultaneously… The current application merely automates this process by using a pre-determined (threshold) number of transactions to make the choice of disabling an animation….
…The knowledge of achieving an enhanced user experience resulting in better/faster device performance by running fewer animations/applications was abundantly common at the priority date.
60. Given this reasoning the examiner appears to be addressing the question of inventive step from the perspective of the claimed invention. The correct starting point for the assessment of inventive step is the citation not the invention as claimed. The question to be answered in this instance, is not whether it would be obvious to automate the disabling of animations in the manner as claimed? The correct question to consider is, given D1 would disabling one or more in animations in the manner claimed, be obvious to one of skill in the art?
61. As I have noted above D1 concerns the rendering of a particular animation effect to transition between two user interface instances. It is therefore difficult to see why disabling animations would be obviously suggested to one of skill in the art, as D1 is wholly reliant on the use of particular animation effects to function as promised.
62. It is noted that in the first report that the examiner cast the problem as how to improve a POS device. In the second report the examiner seemingly recast the problem notably:
“…both D1 and the claimed invention relate to a POS device aimed at enhancing the user experience based on animation management.”
63. It is here in my view where the applicant’s point regarding the casting of the problem is relevant. In the second report the examiner seems to be stating that the problem being addressed by both D1 and the claimed invention is providing an enhanced user experience, this being achieved through animation management. Viewed in this way it does appear that the examiner has improperly brought in elements of the claimed solution into the formulation of the problem.
64. The invention as claimed concerns disabling particular animations based on a threshold measure. While I appreciate that D1, and the instant invention involve the use of POS devices and enhancing user experiences relating to such devices, the documents are not addressing the same or similar problems. Moreover, the proposed solution posed by D1 and the instant are diametrically opposed, one uses a specific animation effect while the other seeks to disable one or more animation effects.
65. I am inclined to agree with the applicant’s point concerning motivation. With D1 as the starting point, there is nothing in the disclosure of D1 that would motivate or that otherwise lead a skilled person to disable one or more animation effects on the basis of thresholds as claimed, noting that doing so runs contra to the teaching of D1.
66. At this stage it is necessary for me to consider the CGK. During examination D2 and D3 were cited as evidencing the general state of the art. Of these references only D2 concerns the adjustment of animation level. D2 shows that the ability to adjust animation levels or disable animations was at least present in android devices before ethe priority date. It is also apparent from looking at D2 that the process to adjust the animations was a manual process requiring significant user interaction including setting the device to developer mode and then accessing the relevant preference menu to set the desired level of animation.
67. With the limited information available to me concerning the CGK, I must draw upon my own experience. I am aware that the ability to disable unnecessary animations or disable certain animations was a feature available under the Windows line of operating systems. Such functionality was available since at least 2009 with the release of the Windows 7 product line. In order to disable unnecessary animations in Windows 7, the user was required to access a preference menu via the ease of access centre located within the control panel. Users were also able to disable select animations by accessing the advanced performance tab under advance settings in the computer properties menu. Again, the process for disabling animations is largely a manual one.
68. What can be said of the CGK is that it was possible before the priority date to disable animations across different computing platforms. This process requiring the user to make such adjustments manually by accessing the relevant presence menus. There is nothing in the CGK that suggests the specific features relating to the use thresholding to adjust the animations as claimed. Consequently, combining D1 with the CGK would not, in my view, render the claim obvious.
69. Considering the above I am satisfied that the invention as claimed involves an inventive step in view of the disclosure of D1 when considered together with the CGK. Therefore, the examiner’s objection for lack of inventive step is not sustainable.
Manner of Manufacture
The Law
70. In National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (“NRDC”), [1959] HCA 67, (1959) 102 CLR 252, the High Court provided a statement of the law regarding manner of manufacture. At page 275:
“... 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”.
71. The High Court though was not laying down a precise formulation that can be applied unthinkingly. This was acknowledged by the High court in Myriad at [23]:
“This Court in NRDC did not prescribe a well-defined pathway for the development of the concept of ‘manner of manufacture’ in its application to unimagined technologies with unimagined characteristics and implications. Rather, it authorised a case-by-case methodology.”
72. That case-by-case approach must have regard to the substance of the claimed invention, not simply the form of the claim. The point was made succinctly in the Myriad case by Gageler and Nettle JJ. 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.”
73. Thus, the assessment as to patentable subject matter in this context requires a consideration of the substance of the invention. To further guide the determination of patentable subject matter in the context of computer implemented inventions, a range of principles have been developed. The principles of law that apply to the present matter are themselves substantially uncontroversial, noting however that on a case-by-case basis at times they can be difficult to apply. These principles were usefully summarised and generally accepted at [200]-[201] by Robertson J in Rokt Pte Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2018] FCA 1988 (“Rokt 1”) at [189] as follows:
“17.1 The Court must decide, as matter of substance not form, whether the claimed invention is the proper subject-matter for a patent: RPL Central at [99]; Research Affiliates at [106], [117].
17.2 This requires consideration of both the claims of the Application and the invention described in the body of the specification: RPL Central at [114].
17.3 The assessment is not done mechanically. There are no precise guidelines or mathematical formula. It is ‘a question of understanding what has been the work of, the output of, and the result of, human ingenuity’ and then applying the developed principles: Research Affiliates at [116]. See further RPL Central at [112]:
Recognising that the claims are to a method and system comprising a combination of integers, it is necessary to understand where the inventiveness or ingenuity is said to lie ...
17.4 One well-settled principle is that a distinction exists between a technological innovation and a business innovation. A technological innovation is patentable. A business innovation is not: Research Affiliates at [94]; RPL Central at [100]. Consequently, a business method or scheme is not, per se, a proper subject for letters patent: RPL Central at [96]. Nor are abstract ideas, mere intellectual information or mere directions for use patentable: Research Affiliates at [101]; RPL Central at [100].
17.5 A computerised business method or scheme can, in some cases, be patentable. However, ‘[w]here the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation’: RPL Central at [96] (emphasis added). This requires ‘some ingenuity in the way in which the computer is used’: RPL Central at [104]. It is not a patentable invention ‘to simply “put” a business method “into” a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well-known and understood functions’: RPL Central at [96]. In other words, if the ingenuity lies in the business method or scheme alone, the invention will not be patentable despite the computer-implementation.
17.6 Thus, a claimed invention must be examined to ascertain whether it is in substance a scheme or plan, or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology: RPL Central at [96]. Contrary to [the applicant’s submissions at [49]], this is a binary distinction: the invention is either an unpatentable scheme or plan, or it is a patentable improvement in computer technology. In conducting the analysis, it is useful to:
17.6.1 ascertain whether the contribution to the claimed invention is technical in nature: RPL Central at [99], Research Affiliates at [114];
17.6.2 consider whether the invention solves a ‘technical’ problem within the computer or outside the computer: RPL Central at [99], Research Affiliates at [103];
17.6.3 consider whether the invention results in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed: RPL Central at [99], Research Affiliates at [118];
17.6.4 consider whether the invention requires merely ‘generic computer implementation’, as distinct from steps which are ‘foreign’ to the normal use of computers: RPL Central at [99], [102]; Research Affiliates at [101]; and
17.6.5 consider whether the computer is merely the intermediary, configured to carry out the method using program code for performing the method, but adding nothing to the substance of the idea: RPL Central at [99].”
74. The Full Federal Court decision in Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 (“Rokt 2”) confirmed and applied these principles. It appears a sensible approach, consistent with the above principles for considering patentability.
75. This approach remains relevant in view of subsequent decisions. In Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Pty Limited [2021] FCAFC 202 (Aristocrat ’21), it was found that a game implemented on an electronic gaming machine was not patentable. After first identifying the claimed invention as involving a mere game which was unpatentable, the Full Court asked whether the claimed invention was a computer-implemented invention before determining that for the claims to be patentable, there needed to be “an advance in computer technology”. On appeal to the High Court, in Aristocrat ‘22 the Court was evenly split, and via section 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903 affirmed the Aristocrat ’21 decision, while appearing to confirm that an advance in computer technology is not a useful test for patentability.
76. Here it is also worth noting the observations of the Deputy Commissioner in Diogenes Limited [2023] APO 8 at [26] regarding the High Court’s affirmation of principles articulated in the decision of the Full Federal Court in relation to manner of manufacture:
“Additionally, the High Court confirmed the decisions of the Full Federal Court in RPL Central, Research Affiliates, Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161, and Rokt 2 were correct. The High Court at [77] also discussed the idea that an “adaptation or alteration of, or an addition to, technology otherwise well-known in the common general knowledge to accommodate the exigencies of a new idea or plan or game” would give rise to patentable subject matter. Such an idea appears consistent with the principles articulated in Rokt 1 which seeks patentability in the form of something, for example, more than merely generic computer implementation; generally being steps which are foreign to the normal use of computers and where the computer is more than merely the intermediary, adding substance to the idea.”
Similarities with Apple
77. Before proceeding with the consideration of manner of manufacture, it is helpful to address the applicant’s comments concerning the Apple case. As noted above the applicant in their submissions has stated that the instant invention concerns similar subject matter to that considered in the Apple case. As the subject matter in the Apple case was held by the Delegate to be patentable then, the applicant argues, the same conclusion should be reached in this case given the similarities.
78. The applicant’s reference to the Apple decision is not of assistance. The assessment of manner of manufacture is not one based on a comparison of the subject matter of one application with that of another. As Myriad makes clear, the assessment requires a determination of the substance of the invention based on a proper construction of the claims read in the light of the specification as a whole and the relevant prior art (per Myriad at [12]). Consequently, the task before me is clear, my role as decision maker is to apply the principles as articulated by the above refenced authorities to the facts of this case to make a determination as to whether the instant application contains suitable subject matter. It is not necessary for me to draw comparison between the subject matter of the instant application and the subject matter of the Apple case in such deliberations.
Consideration of Manner of Manufacture
79. It is noted that the claims recite technical elements of a POS device either explicitly i.e. use of processor memory etc. or indirectly through functional language which implies the use of a processor or other such elements. The presence of such elements is not in and of itself determinative of whether the claimed subject matter qualifies as a manner of manufacture. As highlighted by the relevant legal authorities the question of manner of manufacture is predicated on an assessment of the substance of the invention based on a proper construction of the claimed invention.
80. The invention as claimed involves the use of a POS device which executes an application to facilitate a transaction between a merchant and a customer. The application includes a user interface (UI) for accepting a plurality of inputs associated with the transaction. The UI includes the presentation of one or more animations. The device or application calculates a particular measure (e.g. the number of transactions) over a first period and then disables one or more of the animations when this measure exceeds a threshold value. The result of this as stated in the claim is an improvement in a processing speed.
81. Reading the claims in context of the specification the substance of the invention so far as claimed is concerned with disabling the display of particular user interface effects. Viewed in this way the substance of the invention seemingly concerns the arrangement or presentation of information on a display. Also key to the invention are the conditions upon which the presentation or avoidance of presentation of information are affected.
82. The applicant has submitted that the invention so far as claimed provides for an POS device having an improved UI. As I have disused above there is no significant change in the physical functioning of the UI, the relevant information is displayed, and data is then input into the UI in a conventional manner. Contrary to the applicant’s submissions there is nothing in the specification to suggest that the there is an improvement in the UI. The only apparent change to the UI as such is in the information which the UI displays to enable the user to input the data relating to the transaction. The only apparent benefit in changing the manner in which the information is displayed or otherwise rendered is a potential reduction in time taken by a user to enter the details of the transaction. This reduction in time can also broadly be viewed as an “increase in processing speed”, noting that there is nothing to suggest that the inherent processing capability of the relevant device has been accelerated in any way that is the device is unchanged, just it is utilised in a different way to better make use of the functional resources provided by the device.
83. Thus, the invention primarily concerned with the presentation and disabling of different visual formats of information within a UI, with a desired effect of improved “speed” of completion of a task. That is the device is unchanged, it is just utilised in a different way to better make use of the functional resources provided by the device.
84. I am mindful that the above discussion has focused on one aspect of the claimed invention namely the disabling of animations within the UI. The relevant authorities have made it clear that assessment of manner of manufacture requires consideration of the claimed combination as a whole, including an assessment of the nature of the effects generated as a matter of substance.
85. The applicant has submitted that the substance of the invention lies in the particular computerisation that results in an improved POS device. Consequently, it is necessary for me to carefully consider whether there is anything in the computerisation that may constitute patentable subject matter. Here it is useful to have regard to the considerations as outlined in [67] above.
Does the invention solve a technical problem?
86. In their submissions the applicant has advanced that the invention so far as claimed is directed to solving a technical problem. This problem as postulated by the applicant is how to improve the POS device to provide an enhanced user experience and to do so in a way that best balances the distribution of available processing power of a POS device between displaying animations and processing transactions. The applicant also acknowledges that there is no requirement for the problem being addressed to be a purely technical problem.
87. In the present circumstances the manner in which the applicant has phrased the problem certainly includes aspects that are technical and non-technical. Problems dealing with abstract concepts such as user experience or human experience are non-technical in nature. On the other hand, problems relating to processing power or speed of a POS device may well be technical in nature.
88. When I look to the specification the first indication as to the nature of the problem being addressed is provided at paragraph [0001]. Here it is acknowledged that the provision of animations is desirable as they allow for the presentation of additional information to a user in aesthetically pleasing manner. However, the use of such animations comes at a cost in that they reduce processing capacity of a device. So, while animations are desirable, they may be too undesirable to implement when a high rate of transactions need to be conducted. Similar discussions on the relationship between the use of animations and the speed at which transactions may be processed is provided throughout the specification.
89. In considering the specification it is apparent that the problem being addressed is the trade-off between providing an enhanced user experience and general processing speed, which may be viewed as akin to the operating capacity of a device. Depending on the lens through which this problem is viewed, one could seek to classify it as non-technical or technical in nature. Here I am drawn back to the applicant’s comments that the there is no requirement for the problem to be a purely technical one. My understanding of this is that while the problem being addressed may be a non-technical its solution may be something that is technical in nature and thus capable of falling within the bounds of patentable subject matter.
90. In the present circumstance I do not think that attempting to classify the problem as wholly technical or non-technical necessarily assists my inquiry. Irrespective of the nature of the problem addressed, the question that I need to resolve is whether the substance of the invention is something that is technical in nature that falls within the bounds of patentability. However, there is the point to be made that nothing has been done to the relevant device in order to make it operate any faster as a computer. Instead, certain operations are halted under certain conditions to “make room” for tasks of higher priority. This does not address any issue in computer technology as such, but instead appears to reflect more of an approach to merely managing the use of computer resources.
Is the contribution to the claimed invention technical in nature?
91. As previously noted, the applicant has submitted that the substance or ingenuity (viz the contribution) of the claimed invention resides in the recognition that disabling one or more animations within the UI of the POS device when the number of transactions being processed over a given period exceeds a threshold, which results in an improved POS device. The improvement in the POS device as stated by the applicant is an increase in the processing speed, furthermore the POS device is capable of automatically adapting to actual processing burden. The applicant also states that using the number of transactions as a measure of use may provide a better balance between processing speed and user experience than using some other measures. Thus, in the applicants view the contribution is technical in nature.
92. In essence the applicant’s position is that the apparent contribution of the instant invention lies in the use of a particular measure (i.e. the number of transactions) to adjust the level of animations presented in a UI. The result is an improved POS device that provides a better balance between processing speed and user experience. It is also worth noting here that applicant in identifying the contribution remarks that it has not been demonstrated that a POS device configured to calculate the number of transactions and disabling animations based on this measure was CGK at the priority date of the present application.
93. It is permissible to have regard to the general state to art in assessing the substance of the invention, this assessment is however not the same as that utilised in making a determination of novelty or inventive step where the features of the claim are compared to the prior art. In the present case this appears to be the approach taken by the applicant in determining the contribution i.e. they have sought to align the contribution with features of the claim that are not anticipated by the prior art. This view is reinforced on a review of the claims, only claim 1-5 and 7 recite determining the rate of transactions over a period and using this to make the determination to disable one or more animations. The remaining claims, claims 6 and 8-15, are not limited to the use of the transaction rate to determine when to disable one or more animations.
94. Furthermore, the specification is not limited to the use of one specific measure. The specification clearly discusses the use of measures including time of day, merchant location merchant type, user profile, number of input events such as selections on the device display etc. to make a determination on when to disable one or more of the animations. It is these measures that are the subject of claims 6 and 8-15.
95. Considering the specification as a whole, it is apparent that the invention is more concerned with the management of computer resources. The features relating to the reduction of animations on the basis of the number of transactions is little more than a rule that is utilised to prioritise the performance of one task over that of another. I fail to see anything that is technical nature in the provision of such a rule.
96. Consequently, a more accurate assessment of the contribution is the realisation that the adjustment of animations could be performed automatically using a particular rule or rule set. As I have stated there is nothing technical in the formulation of such a rule. Moreover, the mere realisation or abstract idea that something may be automated is not inherently technical in nature. Furthermore, it has been well settled in patent law that mere automation of processes is not itself sufficient to confer patentability.
97. Notwithstanding the above, there may well be patentable subject matter in the implementation of the idea, provided it results in an improvement in or adaptation to computer technology. In such a context an invention is significantly more than an abstract idea or mere automation alone.
Does invention results in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed?
98. The applicant submits that the substance lies an improved POS device. That is to say there is an improvement in the functioning of the POS device as a result of the invention. As previously noted, the arrangement and operation of the POS device is discussed in relation to figures 2 and 7. On a review of the discussion of these figures I note that the POS device is a conventional POS device. It is also noted that the POS device functions in its normal and expected manner.
99. More specifically the POS device receives inputs relating to the transactions through standard interface techniques. The transaction data is then used to process the transaction in accordance with well-established principles e.g. order entered and fulfilled, payment accepted and passed to payment service provider for processing. There is nothing on the face of the specification that suggests there is, an improvement in, or an adaption of, the POS device. What is describes is nothing more than a conventional POS device.
Much of the applicant’s focus in submissions has been on there being an increase in processing speed of the POS device. On a review of the specification there is nothing to suggest that there is an increase in the processing speed of the POS device in terms of the technological processing of data. It is apparent on a plain reading of the specification that the POS device takes in inputs relating to the transaction and these are then processed as normal.
Moreover, when I look to the specification any alleged improvement to the processing speed is couched in terms of the processing speed of the application in availing itself of moving through, for example, an order for a coffee. As I have discussed above the specification equates the improvement in the steps of the application as an “increase in processing speed of the application” with a reduction in the time to perform data entry via the applications user interface. This understanding is also consistent with the remainder of the specification, when the animations are disabled, the user is able to enter the necessary information relating to the transaction with less interactions with the UI than when the animations are enabled i.e. 3 taps as opposed to 4. In each instance however the same information is presented via the UI and the UI receives the same input data.
Thus, there is no technical distinction in the operation of the UI in each scenario, the only point of difference is the nature and timing of information that is presented to the user. There is nothing in the specification to suggest that the speed at which the application processes transactions, in any absolute sense, is improved. This further reinforced when consideration is given to the manner in which the transactions are subsequently processed. The specification is clear that the transactions once input into the POS are handled in a conventional manner. There is nothing to suggest that disabling the animations although reducing data entry times increases the speed or rate at which the transactions are ultimately processed.
Based on proper consideration the specification and the invention as claimed, the substance is concerned with resource management where resources are made available by ceasing a certain task when a particular rule or value is met. These resources may then be reprioritised for the completion of another task. As such that task may be completed faster owing only to the fact that the resources are not being spent elsewhere, with there being no increase in processing speed of the device.
It is clear from the above discussion that POS device is entirely standard and is merely used for its known abilities to process data in the conduct of a transaction. I am unable to discern any apparent improvement in the function of the involved computing technology, other than the manner in which particular information is presented to enhance user experience.
Does the invention require merely ‘generic computer implementation’, as distinct from steps which are ‘foreign’ to the normal use of computers?
In their submissions the applicant advanced that the ingenuity of the claimed invention resides in the recognising that the animations can be disabled based the number of transactions being processed over a given period of time exceeding a threshold. The use of the number of transactions as a measure of use, provides for an improved POS device having better balance between processing speed and user experience.
Firstly, all that claim requires is the calculation of a particular metric which is then compared to against a pre-set value. If the calculated metric is greater than the pre-set value, a visual setting associated with the user interface is adjusted. The defined process is little more than a conditional loop, which is distinguished based solely on data being processed. Aside from the type of data utilised in the calculation there is nothing in the operation of computer that involves significantly more than processing inputs and displaying the resulting information in a particular format. It is apparent on a reading of the claim and specification that invention simply makes use of the well-known abilities of computers to process data and present the resultant information in a desired format to the user.
What is the substance of the invention and is this patentable?
In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that the invention is concerned with prohibiting the display of one or more user interface effects. There is no change in the information displayed, or in the information input into the POS device to facilitate the transaction. There is no technical change to the POS device or to the manner in which transactions are processed. All that changed is the aesthetics of the display. The effect of the change in “aesthetics” is to allegedly increase the processing speed of the device. However as discussed throughout the decision there is no increase in processing speed of the device as a tool, instead the “increase in processing speed” must be viewed as merely the cessation of a particular task so as to enable other tasks to be prioritised. The prioritised task may complete faster because resources are not being spent elsewhere, but in no way does there appear to be any increasing in processing speed of the device as such.
As such the substance of the invention does not lie in an improvement or adaption of computer technology. The invention relates to a scheme for the management of resources that requires no more than generic computer implementation. The scheme being implemented by means of a particular rule which does not require any ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised. The result of the scheme is the enhancement of user experience through the arrangement or presentation of information so as to provide less information to enable transactions to be affected faster. Consequently, the invention does not solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer.
I find that independent claim 1 is not directed to a manner of manufacture. It also follows that claims 6 and 13 are also not for a manner of manufacture. The dependent claims add features relating to the calculation or use of other metrics to make the determination on disabling one or more animation, the types of animation utilised, facilitating payments etc. I do not see that any of the dependent claims materially varies the substance of the independent claims. Consequently, none of the dependent claims are for a manner of manufacture.
Is there anything within the Application may qualify as a Manner of Manufacture?
The discussion in the specification regarding the configuration of the POS device and the processing of transaction amounts to nothing more than the use of well-known technology for well-known purposes. There is nothing specification that would amount to patentable subject matter.
Conclusion
The inventive step objection raised by the examiner is not sustainable.
The claims do not define a manner of manufacture. The claimed invention, in substance, is a mere scheme for the management of computer resources base on a particular rule. The result of this is mere arrangement or presentation of information for the purposes of enhancing user experience in terms of an easier and potentially faster completion of tasks. There is nothing in the application that could be claimed that would result in a manner of manufacture. I therefore refuse the application.
Neil Miller
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
0
6