Grzegorz Malewicz
[2022] APO 11
•22 February 2022
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Grzegorz Malewicz [2022] APO 11
Patent Application: 2019223804
Title:A method and an apparatus for searching or comparing sites using routes or route lengths between sites and places within a transportation system
Patent Applicant: Grzegorz Malewicz
Delegate: Dr N. R. Madsen – Deputy Commissioner of Patents
Decision Date: 22 February 2022
Hearing Date: Written submissions completed 20 January 2022
Catchwords: PATENTS – section 45 – examiner’s objection – using pre-processing of route segments to enable faster retrieval of routes between sets of start, end, and intermediate points in a network such as a transportation system – clarity, inventive step, manner of manufacture – clarity objection cannot be maintained – invention in substance directed to a mere scheme – application refused
Representation: Self-represented applicant
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2019223804
Title:A method and an apparatus for searching or comparing sites using routes or route lengths between sites and places within a transportation system
Patent Applicant: Grzegorz Malewicz
Date of Decision: 22 February 2022
DECISION
The claims of the application are not directed to a manner of manufacture, and I see no patentable subject matter in the specification. The application is refused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
SUMMARY OF REASONS
The invention is directed towards improved methods to facilitate the comparison of sites such as real estate sites in a large metropolitan area. It involves the identification of descriptions of travel between points in a transportation network in a manner that saves time in data retrieval by precomputing certain possible “legs” of travel, for example between a real estate property and a subway station. The examiner has objected to the application on the basis that the claims are unclear, not for a manner of manufacture, and not inventive.
I find the examiners objections under clarity cannot be maintained. While terms in the claims are extremely broad, I am satisfied that the skilled addressee would have a clear picture of the bounds of the terms identified by the examiner. However, I find that the claims are not directed towards a manner of manufacture. The invention uses standard computer technology and function to implement a scheme for determining a description of travel between sites in a transportation network that can then be used to search and compare sites. The invention is not technical in nature. Instead, as a matter of substance it provides for potentially faster search and comparison by way of a pre-computation of relevant data to effectively reduce steps to be performed upon the receipt of a request for information. This is an improvement in the mere scheme for determining information and preparing it for search and comparison steps, and not a technical improvement.
I have considered the entire specification and find details related to standard technical computer function and well-known mathematical functions that, if amendments were to be made, could not overcome my findings for the claims. Therefore, the application is refused. On this basis there is no need for me to consider the ground of inventive step.
BACKGROUND
Grzegorz Malewicz filed patent application 2019223804 on 14 February 2019 as a PCT application claiming priority from a series of US applications dating back to an earliest priority date of 20 February 2018. Mr Malewicz requested examination on 1 July 2020. A first report was issued on 5 March 2021 and this report was followed by a further six reports before the matter was set for hearing due to a lack of progress with the case. The examination reports contain objections under the grounds of manner of manufacture, clarity, and inventive step.
The standard of proof that applies in the present case is the balance of probabilities (subsection 49(1)). I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act. If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application. Also, the final date for acceptance of the application is 5 March 2022, however paragraph 13.4(1)(g) of the Patent 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.
SPECIFICATION
The alleged invention relates to techniques for searching and comparing “sites”. In the background to the invention at paragraph [002] the idea of a site is exemplified as a real-estate property. In the situation where one might wish to search for and compare real-estate properties it may be desirable to minimise travel distances associated with necessary movements to and from these properties such as going to work or school. In this regard the general approach of the specification is to describe the invention in the context of commuting arrangements with respect to “sites” as real-estate properties that are associated with classical transportation networks and desired destinations associated with those networks. However, the specification does make clear that the idea of a “site” need not necessarily be limited to real-estate property locations and public transport type networks but could also seemingly encompass any type of network arrangement where one can start at a certain point, move through a network, and arrive at a certain end point. Ultimately, the goal of the invention is to enable faster comparison of “optimal-paths” from sites along potential routes.
The most detailed exemplifications provided in the specification relate to the calculation of route lengths. The methods described use pre-processing to precompute and store in a database routes or route lengths between sites and “representatives with a transportation system”. Again, to be clear, a site may be a real-estate property and furthermore, a representative within a transport system may be vehicle stops of a transportation system such as subway stations and bus stops. With this in mind, it is clear that from any particular real estate property starting point, there may be a multitude of ways of travelling through a transportation system to a desired “place” or “destination”. Performing an analysis on a property-by-property basis of the potential routes a prospective homeowner/renter may be required to take is clearly a useful exercise in identifying suitable properties, and something I view as indubitably a consideration that goes into the majority of marketplace decisions as to home locations.
Returning now to the pre-processing, it is clear that the specification identifies this as a core element of the invention described. Here, when a request is received containing a specification of certain elements of a route (e.g., a desired end location), pre-computed data is retrieved to rapidly compute a route or a route length. Using pre-processed data, that may be generated for various start points, real estate properties (“sites”) can be compared. A simple pre-processing exercise described in the specification is the pre-computing and storing of distances from a particular real estate property to a set of vehicle stops in a transportation system. In effect, having pre-stored this data makes it quicker to generate and present travel routes from a real estate property to a particular place because complete paths through the transportation network do not need to be calculated constantly. In short, a set of potential paths are ready to fulfil desired data requests. More is said in the specification at [019]:
How can we deliver these improvements for all? Our invention explains. It includes the following components:
1. The invention defines a model for a commute path. The model is versatile to cover a wide range of commute paths that occur in practice, for example going to school, then to a piano class, and then returning home. The utility of our model is enhanced by our ability to quickly find real estate properties that minimize travel durations.
2. The invention teaches an optimization method that rapidly computes travel durations. The invention identifies the parts of any commute path that are dependent on any real estate property. Travel durations for these parts are precomputed and stored. As a result, when travel durations need to be found for a commute path, the invention can rapidly assemble time parts to produce a travel duration for every real estate property.
3. An embodiment of the invention is a live computer service. The service enables the 25 million residents of the Seoul Metropolitan Area to search or compare real estate properties using travel durations.
I also note that while the primary understanding of the invention is formulated in the context of “route lengths” as a physical distance, the concepts of the invention can be abstracted to any type of arbitrary starting site and ending place in a networked connection between start and end, where physical distances between points may be substituted with other parameters such as cost or time. More broadly, it would appear that the present invention could be extended to optimise for any arbitrary “route specific” parameters, the key here being the improved speed of calculation because of the step of pre-computation.
From paragraph [020] the description outlines the method of the described invention. Consistent with my discussion above, “travel” is viewed in a broad sense as being some kind of movement of objects. A “description of travel” is noted as anything a person would name so, and on my understanding could include a physical distance, a monetary cost, or a travel time. The potential arbitrariness of the term is further depicted in [020] as including an instruction “hey buddy, you need to go one block north, and then turn slightly left”. To this extent a “description of travel” appears to be some arbitrary information that can potentially be optimised for.
The method is discussed as comprising two parts. A first part is where for example, travel durations between real estate properties and vehicle stops of a transportation system are computed and stored in a database. FIG. 2 shows an illustrative embodiment of this first part wherein public transportation data is received along with real estate property data. This data inevitably forms a network of connections between real-estate properties and public transport stops functioning as nodes/vertices in a network, and descriptions of travel functioning as edges of the network. This data is discussed in the specification in some detail as being capable of being clustered.
This clustering involves the extension of the public transportation network graph by creating clusters where locations such as stop stations in the transport network or properties (such as in a common high-rise location) are within a threshold distance of other stop stations or properties. Thus, “stop station clusters” and “home clusters” can be created and these can be added to the graph as vertices/nodes representing additional connected locations. In this manner clusters may be further connected to associated stop stations and properties by edges of essentially “zero” length. Clusters can then be connected to one another or to individual locations by edges representing walk durations or other travel characteristics that may be stored in a database. In this way one can build a graphical representation of a transportation network with additional data representing clusters, and associated travel to represent transits between locations. This graph can then be used to precompute and store durations of shortest travel between clusters, from properties to stop stations, from stop stations to properties and from properties to properties.
In terms of the benefit of clustering it is noted at [038] of the specification:
We remark that clustering allows our method to significantly improve the performance of a shortest graph paths computation, by "unifying" locations that are essentially the same with respect to shortest graph paths. For example, in a tall apartment complex, there may be hundreds of homes, and our method will "unify" them into just one home cluster. Thus, a shortest graph paths algorithm needs to compute shortest graph paths for just one home cluster, rather than for hundreds of constituent homes.
The graphs generated to represent this data appear to be able to be both directed and undirected weighted graphs, and the creation of such graphs for use in mapping and route planning would appear to be well understood as discussed in the Wikipedia article describing Graph Theory ( [Accessed 27 August 2021].
“A graph structure can be extended by assigning a weight to each edge of the graph. Graphs with weights, or weighted graphs, are used to represent structures in which pairwise connections have some numerical values. For example, if a graph represents a road network, the weights could represent the length of each road. There may be several weights associated with each edge, including distance (as in the previous example), travel time, or monetary cost. Such weighted graphs are commonly used to program GPS's, and travel-planning search engines that compare flight times and costs.”
The second part of the process involves the receipt of requests which may contain a commute path and desired features of a real estate property. When a request is received, appropriate travel durations are retrieved from the database, and these are used together to produce a travel duration for a commute path for real estate properties having desired features.
Potential commute paths are depicted in FIG. 8 and methods for obtaining travel durations are discussed. Paragraph [068] discusses route optimisation with respect to FIG. 8:
The method considers two ways of getting from H to W1 . See FIG. 8 for an illustration. The first way is a direct walk. When H and W1 are nearby, a true shortest travel will often be a direct walk. The method thus queries a walk engine (for example prior art) to compute the shortest walk duration walk (H ➔ W1). The second way uses the transportation system. The method finds the stopstation clusters that are within a threshold distance, for example 2000 meters, from W1, denoted by a set A. The set A is a subset of { s 1 , ... , sn} of all stopstation clusters (in FIG. 8 the A= { s 1 , s2 , s3} ). The method queries a walk engine to retrieve a shortest walk duration walk (si ➔ W1), for each si in A. When H and W1 are not nearby, a true shortest travel will often pass through a stopstation in the set A, and then continue along a corresponding walk. Due to the two-way approach we apply, the resulting travel duration often is a shortest travel duration.
While there is extensive mathematics discussed in the specification involving the use of vector representations of data, and weighted summations, I need not touch upon them at this stage of the decision, and I will discuss where necessary when dealing with specific issues. Instead, it is useful to draw attention to FIGs 11 and 12 which respectively depict a computer system and computer service functioning to implement the described method. FIG. 11 is discussed at paragraph [150] as follows:
We use the term "module" in our description. It is known in the art that the term means a computer (sub)system that provides some specific functionality. Our choice 989 of partitioning the computer system into the specific modules is exemplary, not mandatory. Those of ordinary skill in the art will notice that the system can be organized into modules in other manner without departing from the scope of the invention.
To this extent it would appear that there is nothing unique about the computer architecture that is used in the present invention. It would seem FIG. 11 represents an implementation of a modularly formulated program on a generic or standard computer system.
Similarly, FIG. 12 appears to represent a computer interface that is characterised merely by the information presented on it, there being no suggestion with respect to that figure that anything but a standard computer interface is capable of functioning in the depicted manner. Here paragraph [158] notes:
One of the embodiments of the invention is a computer service for searching or comparing real estate properties using commutes. The service is available to users through a user-accessed device, for example a smartphone application or a webpage. It will be obvious to anyone of ordinary skill in the art that the invention is not limited to these devices. It will also be obvious that the presentation of the service in our drawings can be modified (for example by rearranging, resizing, changing colors, shape, adding or removing components) without departing from the scope of the invention.
The specification ends with a paragraph discussing the nature of the invention with respect to the claims at paragraph [167] as follows:
Those of ordinary skill in the art shall notice that various modifications may be made, and substitutions may be made with essentially equivalents, without departing from the scope of the present invention. Besides, a specific situation may be adapted to the teachings of the invention without departing from its scope. Therefore, despite the fact that the invention has been described with reference to the disclosed embodiments, the invention shall not be restricted to these embodiments. Rather, the invention will include all embodiments that fall within the scope of the appended claims.
The claimed invention
The specification, as presently proposed to be amended on 18 June 2021 includes three independent claims. Claim 1 is a method for searching or comparing, reciting various method steps, while claims 2 and 3 further characterise the invention more specifically as either: a computer system with a processor, storage medium and program performing the method of claim 1; or an apparatus with a receiver and transmitter performing method steps of claim 1. As such, for the purposes of this decision, it is sufficient at this stage to simply present claim 1, which is as follows:
A method for searching or comparing at least one site using at least one description of travel within a transportation system between the at least one site and at least one place, the method comprising:
(a) receiving at least one representative, wherein each representative is a location included in the transportation system;
(b) receiving a request comprising the at least one place; and
(c) responding to the request with a result of searching or comparing obtained using the at least one description of travel;
the method characterized by:
(d) determining at least one precomputed description of travel and storing it in a database, wherein each first precomputed description of travel describes travel within the transportation system between a first site included in the at least one site and a first representative included in the at least one representative; and
(e) computing the at least one description of travel that comprises a description of travel within the transportation system between an endpoint site included in the at least one site and an endpoint place included in the at least one place, wherein the endpoint site or the endpoint place is not included in the at least one representative, and wherein the computing comprises:
i.determining at least one nearby representative included in the at least one representative, wherein a length of travel within the transportation system between each nearby representative and the endpoint place is within a first threshold:
ii.retrieving from the at least one precomputed description of travel a second precomputed description of travel between the endpoint site and the nearby representative; and
iii.determining a description of travel within the transportation system between the nearby representative and the endpoint place.
I approach the claim in the context of the specification as I have already discussed above. Firstly, the preamble introduces a method for searching or comparing at least one site. The method of searching or comparing involves a first step (a) whereby a least one representative is received. Returning to my discussion of the description it is clear that at least one representative is well understood as a set (potentially including only one location) of sites within a transportation system, which for example could be a subway station or bus stop or clusters thereof. Step (b) then involves the receipt of a request comprising at least one place. In this regard the step appears to constitute the receipt of a destination “place” (e.g., a work location) and would appear to assume that relevant sites (e.g., real estate properties) will at some point in a process be obtained and used in calculations. Step (c) then identifies that the system responds to the request with a result of searching or comparing obtained using some characteristic descriptions of travel.
The next part of the claim describes in detail, how sites, representatives, and places are used to determine a description of travel. Step (d) involves the key step of the precomputation of descriptions of travel and database storage. A first precomputed description of travel is defined as describing travel between: a first site included in the previously defined at least one site (it appears that this at least one site may be a single site or a set of sites, i.e. a cluster); and a first representative included in previously defined at least one representative (again it appears that this at least one representative may be a single representative or a set of representatives, i.e. a cluster).
Following this, step (e) involves the computation of a description of travel between a “site” and a “place”. Here, there now appears to be at least three locations present in the claim for which a calculation appears to be performed. In other words, computation appears to be performed of a description of travel starting for example from a real estate site, travelling through a representative subway station and then to a place such as a workplace. This computational step is performed in a certain order being first determining for example, representative sites such “subway stations” nearby the endpoint place (e.g., workplace) being within a first threshold, and then retrieving, from the database, a precomputed segment from the representative “subway station” to the site, e.g., a real estate property. In doing so it appears that a full description of travel can be formulated describing travel within the transportation system comprised of at least two segments: for example, one segment from the real estate property to the subway station and one segment from the subway station to the endpoint place which as noted above may be a workplace. It is the claimed use of precomputation that appears to provide the benefits of fast information retrieval discussed in the description, and which ultimately forms an element of a method whereby a description of travel is obtained that can be further used to obtain some result of a search/comparison request as per step (c).
It is apposite at this stage to note that the above summary interpretation of the claimed invention does not come without at least a little difficulty. It is at this point I turn to the issues of clarity raised by the examiner.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Legal Principles
While the rules of construction for an Australian patent specification are well summarized in Decor Corp v Dart Industries [1988] FCA 399; 13 IPR 385, the correct application of these rules to the construction of claims was discussed by Bennett J in H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 70; 81 IPR 228 at [118] – [120]:
"the words in a claim should be read through the eyes of the skilled addressee in the context in which they appear ... while the claims define the monopoly claimed in the words of the patentee's choosing, the specification should be read as a whole ... it is not permissible to read into a claim an additional integer or limitation to vary or qualify the claim by reference to the body of the specification ... terms in the claim which are unclear may be defined or clarified by reference to the body of the specification."
I also note that the requirement that the claims are clear is understood to be satisfied if a person could ascertain "whether or not what he proposes to do falls within the ambit of the claim" (Monsanto Co v Commissioner of Patents (1974) 48 ALJR 59).
To paraphrase, if one can work out whether what they are doing with their product or method is inside of the scope of the claim, then a claim can be considered as clear. Importantly, the description and drawings can be useful for resolving ambiguity in the wording of a claim.
Examiner’s objection to clarity
Regarding the examiner’s objection to the clarity of the scope of the claims the examiner notes the following in the fifth report (including the examiner’s emphasis):
“(a) It is still unclear with regard to what aspects of the "at least one site" are being searched, or what the site is being compared with. It is furthermore unclear as to how a description of travel is used to obtain a result as proposed to the claim at step (c). As raised in the previous report and maintained in this report “no further detail is provided in the claims”.
(b) Furthermore, I have considered the submissions in the reply regarding the rest of the claimed features and found them not to be persuasive. The rest of the objections in the previous report are maintained as follows:
(i)The terminology “description of travel” is also still unclear as it is not possible to determine what the feature as claimed could include within its scope. This terminology is unclear in meaning and includes descriptive words such as: walking, jogging, running, driving, riding etc., or seemingly any other description such as any and every set of travel (movement) instructions that have not been described within its scope.
(ii)Determining at least a pre-computed description of travel where each describes travel within the transport system (at step (d) of claim 1) is unclear in scope. As a description of travel is precomputed, there would appear to be no need to make any determination as claimed.
(iii)The feature regarding each first precomputed description of travel describes travel at step (d) is unclear. It is unclear as to how, and in what manner the travel is described.
(iv)The alternative “or the end point is not included in the at least one representative” at step (e) of claim 1 is irrelevant as it is out of context. The significance/role of the feature is unclear and has no working interrelationship with the rest of the claimed features.
(v)The term “nearby” recited at step e(i) is a relative term. There is no clear definition as to what the representative(s) are nearby to.
(vi)“A second precomputed travel” step e (ii) is also unclear in context, as this feature’s purpose and significance in the claim is not defined. It is not referred to again in the claim, and similarly has no working relationship with the rest of the features of the claim.”
Consideration of the scope of the claims
Point (a): Search, compare, results
The applicant submits with respect to point (a) that:
“Any entity can be ‘searching or comparing’ with the ‘at least one site’, and a ‘description of travel’ can be used in any manner, both within the teachings of the disclosure, when the limitation ‘using…” recited in the preamble is fulfilled.
Looking at the claimed invention it is clear that there is no detail regarding the nature of any specific searching or comparison steps. As I discussed above at paragraphs 20 to 22, the claimed method involves a first part (a)-(c) that receives a representative location in a transportation system along with a desired place, and responds to a request with a result of some search or comparison. This first part of the claim is further characterised by features in the second part, (d) to (e)(i)-(iii), which relate to determination of a description of travel for given endpoints and a transportation network representative. Clearly the claim does not limit to any particularly natured search or comparison using this description of travel. It is simply the case that the relevant description of travel data is used in some kind of search or comparison. While this renders the claimed features extremely broad in scope, I am not satisfied that it renders the claim unclear. Any search or comparison will suffice. Similarly, while the claim does not specify how a description of travel is used to obtain a result, it merely appears to be claimed that the description of travel is used to obtain a result, in some non-specified way. To this extent, the description of travel could be used in any manner, as noted by the applicant. While the relevant features appear to be broad in scope, I do not consider them unclear because of a lack of detail in the claims. It may be the case that a lack of detail in a claim manifests other issues under section 40 of the Patents Act (for example the requirement that the claims be supported under section 40(3)), but I do not intend to make any further assessment under other grounds or reasons not present in the examination reports at this stage.
The specification discusses a range of search and comparison steps and also describes a range of ways that a description of travel might be used to obtain a result. At the same time, the invention’s focus appears to lie in the precomputation and storage of descriptions of travel between sites and representatives and as such is a concept itself agnostic to the end steps described by subsequent searches, comparisons and results. I agree with the applicant that the relevant terms in the claim can function in any manner, with the person skilled in the art equipped with a knowledge of what is generally meant by the terms “search”, “compare” and “result”. I consider point (a) cannot be maintained.
Point (b)(i): Description of travel
Turning to point (b)(i) the examiner takes issue with the range of features that may be within the scope of the term. Again, the term presents a broad feature, and it is true that it is not necessarily possible to list all of the things that may fall within the scope of the claim. However, I do not see this as the question required for determining whether the claim is clear. What is relevant is to consider is whether the skilled addressee could determine whether their concept of the invention falls within the scope of the claimed invention, and to this extent, it is the boundary of the claimed scope that must be clear. It is not necessary to have a complete “list” of what is within the claim’s scope, one need only clearly understand the bounds of the claim.
With this in mind I turn to the specification to gain an understanding of the term “description of travel” so as to resolve the potential ambiguity as it is reasonable to argue that on its face, the term poses challenges of claim construction. The specification makes a number of references to the term. Firstly, at paragraph [020] the term is discussed in a broad sense as follows:
We use the term travel in a broad sense that includes moving objects or data. A description of travel is anything that a person of ordinary skill in the art would name so. Here are some examples of a description of travel: (1) "hey buddy, you need to go one block north, and then turn slightly left", and (2) "5 dollars". We may use a term travel path when we mean a description of travel. A length of travel is a numeric value that a person of ordinary skill in the art can associate with travel, for example a distance, a monetary cost, etc. As other example, we may use a term travel duration when we mean a length of travel that represents time. A length of travel is by itself a description of travel. A description of travel: may not include any length of travel, may include only a length of travel, or may also include some other data.
The specification discusses a range of embodiments which involve calculations between classical locations in an urban transportation network. However, it is clear that the specification takes this concept to a more abstract level wherein a network of locations is envisaged involving sites where movement can occur therebetween. Paragraphs [126] and [127] describe the broadening of the concept as follows:
Shortest graph paths in a given graph can be computed without knowing geographical locations of the various vertexes of the graph. Hence, in one embodiment, the method uses a transportation system whose various elements lack geographical location.
The transportation system need not physically move objects. The method merely needs to be able to determine route or route lengths between the elements of the transportation system. Thus a computer network, that moves data, is an example of a transportation system, comprising these transportation elements: wires/lines (analogous to roads), and hubs/switches (analogous to stops/turns). Many other examples of a transportation system will be apparent to anyone of ordinary skill.
I consider that the specification clearly outlines a concept of an interconnected network of edges and vertices that represent motion of some type between points. This motion between points can be characterised in a certain way, being a description of travel, that one can optimise using an appropriate algorithm. Further text in the specification describing this optimisation of some parameter describing the path between sites includes paragraphs [049], [050], and [147]:
In one embodiment, the weights on some graph edges represent monetary costs of travel, instead of travel durations. Then our method searches or compares homes based on the monetary cost of commute paths. Any other semantic of edge weights can be used, for example: a number of transfers among public transportation vehicles, a duration of wait, monetary cost of wait, or a distance of travel.
In one embodiment, we apply a multi-objective optimization search based on a multi-dimensional cost. For example, we search for a shortest graph path whose length represents a travel duration, such that a monetary cost that represents the graph path is at most a threshold, or when a monetary cost is added as a penalty to the graph path length.
Our description so far mainly talked about a travel duration as the search or compare objective. However, the method can use any other objective, for example: a monetary cost of travel; a metric distance; specific features or attributes of travel paths, for example: the number of transfers, or a walking distance; or features of homes, for example: a price, a size, or a type. In one embodiment, this can be simply achieved by building graphs and setting edge weights appropriately. Various objectives may be combined into a multi-objective optimization search based on a multi-dimensional cost, for example to search for a home that minimizes a travel duration that is penalized by the monetary cost of travel.
I acknowledge the term “description of travel” is broad and according to the specification includes any suitable parameter for characterising an edge of a graph which represents “travel” or “movement” between nodes in that graph. The specification clearly envisages such a broad construction serving to resolve the prima facie ambiguity of the term in question. Each of the terms identified by the examiner appears to fit within the requirement of being some qualitative or quantitative parameter that an optimisation algorithm may be designed to select for. Thus, while it may not be possible to identify completely, all that lies within the scope of the claim, I am satisfied that the one can determine the bounds of the claim regarding the term “description of travel”.
Point (b)(ii): Precomputed
The examiner’s report argues that step (d) of claim 1 is unclear in as much as the claim begins with the feature of “determining a least one precomputed description of travel and storing it in a database”. This feature is followed by the feature “wherein each first precomputed description of travel describes travel within the transportation system between a first site included in the at least one site and a first representative included in the at least one representative”. The examiner notes that given there is a precomputation of a description of travel, there would be no need to make any determination as claimed.
While the wording of the claim may be a little awkward, I consider that clear meaning can be given to this element of the claim. The first part of step (d) refers to the fact that precomputed descriptions of travel are determined and stored in a database. The second part then appears to characterise the nature of the determined precomputed descriptions of travel that are stored in the database. In this regard, the nature of the determined precomputed descriptions of travel is that each first precomputed description of travel describes travel between a first particular site included in a site and a first particular representative included in a representative. From a reading of the specification, it is clear that a precomputation is performed such that descriptions of travel are stored in a data base. I consider the terminology where step (d) is “determining at least one precomputed description of travel” merely reflects the specification’s discussion of the key element of the invention being to precompute and store for example, travel for all relevant homes to representatives. Paragraph [022] states:
At a high level, the method is composed of two parts. The first part computes travel durations between real estate properties and representatives that are vehicle stops of a transportation system. These travel durations are stored in a database, so that they can be readily retrieved when a request is received.
With this in mind, the phrase “determining at least one precomputed description of travel” can be read as a whole to constitute the exercise of identifying descriptions of travel that can be thus considered precomputed by means of the storage in the database. The applicant makes a point of analogy with the phrase “make a blue car” which I essentially understand to be saying the car is not blue until it is made, blue merely being an adjective for the future product. I see the analogy with “precomputed” being an adjective for the product made by the determination.Again, I am not satisfied the examiner’s objection can be maintained.
Point (b)(iii): Each first precomputed description of travel
The examiner’s report argues that step (d) of claim 1 is further unclear because it is unclear as to how, and in what manner the travel is described. I have dealt with the description of travel above under point (b)(i). For the same reasons I do not consider this element of the objection can be maintained.
Point (b)(iv): Or the endpoint is not included…
In step (e) of the claim a description of travel is computed between an endpoint site and an endpoint place wherein the endpoint site or the endpoint place is not included in the at least one representative. This seems to suggest that there are at least three “locations” involved in the computation being a site, a place and a representative. As set out by the description, the representative is described often as for example, a subway station between the site and the place. The claim states that the endpoint site or the endpoint place is not included in the at least one representative. The objection raised by the examiner states that the feature has no working interrelationship with the rest of the claimed features.
My understanding of the feature “wherein the endpoint site or the endpoint place is not included in the at least one representative” is that it serves to qualify the nature of the endpoint site and the endpoint place with reference to the at least one representative. To this extent the feature explicitly limits the claim to the situation where seemingly, at least one of the endpoint site or endpoint place is not included in the at least one representative. In other words, the site, place and representative are distinct locations as defined by the relevant phrase. To this extent, I see a working interrelationship and clear role of the feature in the claim.
Point (b)(v): Nearby
In step (e)(i) of the claim is the feature “determining at least one nearby representative included in the at least one representative”. The examination report suggests there is no clear definition as to what the representatives are nearby to. On this I observe that the remainder of this feature states “wherein a length of travel within the transportation system between each nearby representative and the endpoint place is within a first threshold”. I consider that this second part of the claimed feature defines the nature of the proximity. The nearby representatives are defined as being within a certain threshold of the endpoint place. Thus, I consider the claimed feature of (e)(i), when read as a whole, does define what the representatives are nearby to.
Point (b)(vi): Second precomputed travel
In step (e)(ii) of the claims a “second precomputed travel” is claimed. The examiner suggests that this feature is not defined and has no working relationship with the rest of the claim. Reading (e)(ii) as a whole, the feature is defined as “retrieving from the at least one precomputed description of travel a second precomputed description of travel between the endpoint site and the nearby representative”. Consistent with my discussion through the decision to this point, it appears clear that the claimed invention identifies two descriptions of travel between three points that may be used to produce a result. In other words, identified is a description of travel between an endpoint site and a nearby representative, and a description of travel between a nearby representative and an endpoint place. The feature of claim (e)(ii) appears to simply label the description of travel between the endpoint site and the nearby representative as a “second precomputed description of travel”. As a result, I do not consider the objection raised by the examiner can be maintained.
Clarity summary
In have considered each of the reasons raised by the examiner for considering the claimed invention unclear. While certain features of the claimed invention are extremely broad, I do not see an ambiguity regarding the bounds of the claim in the manner posed by the examiner’s objections. As such I do not consider that the clarity objection is maintainable.
MANNER OF MANUFACTURE
Legal Principles
I have summarised the law regarding manner of manufacture in recent decisions Accenture Global Services Limited [2022] APO 8 and Nasdaq Technology AB [2021] APO 39. Briefly, I reiterate that the High Court has stated in In National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (“NRDC”), [1959] HCA 67, (1959) 102 CLR 252 that for patentability to be found there must be “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”. However, it is clear that this is not exhaustive of the considerations with the High Court in D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc (“Myriad”), [2015] HCA 35, noting at [23] that a “case-by-case” methodology is required, and at [144] that the task is one to be approached as a matter of substance:
“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.”
In the present context where the invention lies in a computer implemented method, relevant principles (developed in cases Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 177; (2015) 328 ALR 458 (RPL Central) and Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150; (2014) 227 FCR 378 (Research Affiliates)) are those usefully summarised and generally accepted by Robertson J in Rokt Pte Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2018] FCA 198 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].”
The Full Federal Court decision in Commissionerof Patents v RoktPte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 (Rokt 2) confirmed and applied these principles. It appears a sensible approach, consistent with the above principles for considering patentability, to consider whether the invention constitutes a technical solution and/or solves a technical problem.
Following the Rokt 2 decision, the Full Court has found adversely for patentability for two further inventions. In the first decision, Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Pty Limited (Aristocrat ’21) [2021] FCAFC 202, 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”. The same considerations were applied by Perram J in Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCAFC 223, where it was also noted by Nicholas J with reference to RPL Central that the claimed method did not “involve any improvement in computer technology or any unusual or unconventional technical method or effect capable of giving rise to patentable subject matter”.
To summarise the legal principles developed for computer implemented inventions it appears reasonable to suggest that a method that is otherwise unpatentable, that is implemented in a computer, will not be patentable unless some improvement in computer technology is present. To this extent, an invention may be usefully implemented in a computer and achieve a useful result, but as noted in Research Affiliates at [114], such an invention may not be patentable.
Examiner’s objection to manner of manufacture
The fundamental basis for the examiner’s objection under the ground of manner of manufacture is as follows as presented in the seventh report:
“… “A description of travel” is not technical. The method steps as claimed (involving such tasks as “receiving”, “determining”, “computing” and the like) are not foreign to the generic and conventional functions of a computer. There is no suggestion in the specification as filed that there was a technical problem to be solved within or outside the computer in implementing your scheme; or that the contribution of the invention solves such a technical problem or results in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed. Any technical problems you may have encountered in creating the tool used in your website “findhome.ai” do not appear to exist for this invention. The substance of the invention is a scheme.”
Applicants Submissions
The applicant’s submissions seek to address this point of a lack of technicality in the invention raised by the examiner. The applicant argues:
· the claim itself recites using a “database” (that is, using hardware), at least in step 1(d) (“and storing it in a database”) and in step 1(e)ii (“retrieving”), and
· the “searching or comparing” is an industrial process in view of the specification.
The applicant further discusses the “searching or comparing” as being a technical process by making the following points:
· Please refer to paragraph [013] of the specification that describes “searching or comparing … real estate properties … minimizing travel durations of commutes between real estate properties and workplaces”.
· Please refer to paragraph [146] of the specification that describes a “method searches or compares work sites based on a user-specified …”.
· Please refer to paragraph [146] of the specification that describes “…the corporation may determine how each location will affect commutes of the employees…”.
· Please refer to Section 4.3 of the specification reciting a “commute path”, Fig. 12 depicting a “home (1209) and a “work” (1203) that are included in a request and that are being compared, and to “information about a route or route length” of item (g) in paragraph [166], that collectively describe a navigation/routine engine (such as that commonly seen on Google Maps).
The applicant also discusses technical means described in the specification for performing the claimed invention including examples such as a CPU, memory, HDD disks, user-accessed device, computer program, and an arbitrary hardware platform. He refers to figures depicting displayed and mapped information and the use of a smart phone. Ultimately, he argues that the “searching or comparing” can be viewed as an “existing technological process” in “conventional industry practice”, with the contribution of claim 1 lying in the way in which the “searching or comparing” works, using a technique of one-sided representatives.
Consideration
I will turn to consideration of the issue of manner of manufacture with a mind to fully address the range of factors identified in the various Full Federal Court decisions.
Does the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer?
The background of the invention at paragraph [002] lays out what appear to be every day goals related to the searching for and comparing of real estate sites embodying the age-old concept of “location, location, location”. It notes that:
A traditional goal of searching is to find a site, from among a range of possible alternative sites, that achieves an optimization objective, such as minimize a route length given specific travel requirements and desired features of the sought site. For example, when searching for real estate properties given required destination of commutes and real estate property features, a goal may be to enumerate real estate properties with matching features that have the shortest commute durations. Other goal (sic) may be to compare any real estate properties using commute durations.
The invention is then briefly introduced as a method for searching or comparing sites using routes or route lengths. Focus is immediately placed in the specification upon the fact that the method uses pre-processing to precompute and store in a database, routes or route length between each site and representatives with a transportations system. As noted at [004]:
When a request containing a route specification is received, precomputed data is retrieved from the database to rapidly compute a route or route length for each site. Sites may be search or compared using routes or route lengths.
Also, at paragraph [005], after discussing the use of graphs to model travel between locations in a network, reference is made to precomputation enabling faster route comparison.
The system builds graphs that model travel between sites and representatives within the system. The system computes graph paths, and stores graph paths or graph path lengths. This enables to quickly compute routes or route lengths for every site when a request is received, and search or compare sites using routes or route lengths.
As described earlier, the claimed invention considers arbitrary sites, representatives and places forming part of a transportation network. In order to enable fast identification of information for an arbitrary search and/or comparison function, the claimed invention pre-calculates and stores descriptions of travel between sites and representatives within a transportation system. A useful way to understand how this concept is embodied is to consider that the pre-calculation and pre-storing of data may be in relation to descriptions of travel between some starting point in a route (for example a real estate property or cluster of real estate properties) and some location within a transportation network (for example a subway station or a cluster of subway stations). Having pre-stored this information, the task then of “building” complete route information from, for example, a real estate property to a location such as a place of work via subway stations, is simplified because certain segments of travel have already been identified and stored. This simplification amounts to a faster identification of a complete description of travel for subsequent use in searching and/or comparison. The invention thus provides a faster searching and comparison algorithm for use in situations such as metropolitan type areas where options and optimisable parameters may be voluminous. As already discussed, paragraph [019] of the specification outlines the foundations of what the invention has set out to achieve.
How can we deliver these improvements for all? Our invention explains. It includes the following components:
1.The invention defines a model for a commute path. The model is versatile to cover a range of commute paths that occur in practice, for example, going to school, then to piano class, and then returning home. The utility of our model is enhanced by our ability to quickly find real estate properties that minimize travel durations.
2.The invention teaches an optimization method that rapidly computes travel durations. The invention identifies parts of any commute path that are dependent on any real estate property. Travel durations for these parts are precomputed and stored. As a result, when travel durations need to be found for a commute path, the invention can rapidly assemble time parts to produce travel duration for every real estate property.
3.An embodiment of the invention is a live computer service. The service enables the 25 million residents of the Seoul Metropolitan Area to search or compare real estate properties using travel durations.
The invention seeks to create a “faster” search algorithm for searching and/or comparing information. It does this by precomputing useful information. Thus, it is clear that the problems addressed by the present invention do not relate to any inherent limitations in computer technology. The problems that arise are a direct result of the need to perform certain steps in the algorithmic calculation process relevant to a large set of data points. Instead of performing all calculations at the point of a request for information being received from a “user/client/customer”, a set of computations are performed, and results stored before requests are received. This moves processing activity from after a request for information to before a request for information. The search algorithm may clearly be faster from the point of view of the person searching and comparing real estate properties, but this is a result of a “prepared earlier” approach, so to speak.
It follows that I am satisfied that the problem can be articulated as a desire to speed up the exercise of identifying complete descriptions of travel between points in a transportation network. Clearly this is a not a technical problem within a computer. I also do not consider this is inherently a technical problem in general. The problem is best categorised as logistical in that in the manner solved by the claimed invention, it seeks to simply minimise the amount of “work” or “steps” performed at the time of a particular user requested action.
Turning to the applicant’s submissions, general reference is made to a database, searching and comparing, user specified input, and a range of standard computer hardware and online tools. It is clear from the specification that no technical limitations of these elements are addressed. I also refer to the applicant’s identification of functions such as “minimising travel duration” and determining “how each location will affect commutes of the employees”. Such exercises do not relate to any particular technical problem, and instead present as a purely mathematical, algorithmically, or even logistical problems. These are calculations, albeit potentially burdensome or complex, that people solve in their heads every day.
I conclude that the invention does not solve a technical problem.
Does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed? Can the invention be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology?
It is plain in the present matter that there is no improvement or advance in computer technology in the claimed invention. The computer function that is present in the claimed invention includes: generically identified searching or comparing; a database; receiving; responding; determining; computing; and retrieving. Independent claims 2 and 3 include further physical features such as: one or more processors; a storage medium; a program; user-accessed device; receiver; and transponder. Each of these elements is presented in a generic manner, simply performing its usual function with respect to the particular data that is being processed. The applicant’s submissions reflect the idea that a computer is not improved or advanced by this invention in noting that “the ‘searching or comparing’ can be viewed as an ‘existing technological process’ in ‘conventional industry practice’”. The contribution of claim 1 lies in the pre-processing that is performed to provide information in a quick manner so as to be used in a search or comparing action. While technological processes are inevitably involved in the claim, there is no improvement in these technological processes or tools provided by the present invention.
Are there any steps foreign to the normal use of computers? Is there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised? Is the invention technological or business innovation?
Consistent with the consideration immediately above, it is clear that each computer-based function that is described in the claims is native to computer operation. The steps performed along the lines of receiving, responding, and determining are couched without detail as to how they are performed in a computer. The claimed functions are accompanied by detail as to the nature of the data that they relate to but operate by way of an indifference to the physical nature of their inclusion in the claim, to merely implement steps of an algorithm. This being the case, the claimed invention as a matter of substance relates to what the computer is doing in as much as performing, in a standard technical manner, certain data processing steps. The invention is not in the way the computer is utilised or how the computer is functioning.
The ingenuity or innovation clearly lies in the data processing steps themselves. These data processing steps do not solve a technical problem within or outside the computer, and consistent with my observation below that there is no technical effect, provide for a scheme that can be labelled as business innovation as opposed to technical innovation. While I note that “business innovation” may be regarded as somewhat of an umbrella term that may be difficult to demarcate, in the present case the claimed invention clearly relates to a computer implemented algorithm that simplifies and thereby speeds up a “logistical” or even “administrative” task of working out descriptions of travels between a series of points. This effect is achieved by pre-processing data so as to avoid the need for its later calculation. To my mind, this is not technological innovation.
A similar finding was made by a delegate of the Commissioner of Patents in OneMap Pty Ltd [2021] APO 37. He found that the superior performance of an invention involving mapping and searching of land parcels which used pre-processing to speed up actions was “attributable solely to the design of the scheme and not to any technological innovation worthy of patent protection”.
Referring again to the applicant’s submissions, it is noted that there are a range of technical means present in the claimed and described invention. This is no doubt true, and the same can be said of inventions described in key Full Federal Court decisions such as RPL Central, Rokt 2, Aristocrat ‘21 and Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 (Encompass). Importantly however, in each of those cases, no ingenuity in computer function was present, the inventions being considered a mere scheme or game.
Is the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea?
Again, considerations immediately above appear to address this point. A computer, while arguably not necessarily present in claim 1, would appear essential to the embodied invention in that there is no suggestion in the specification that the invention is to be performed manually. However, the computer does not itself add anything of substance to the idea. The substance of the invention is well depicted by the applicant in the specification at [019] (see above), involving pre-computing data for convenience of speed at a later data request time. The computer is merely the tool for performing the algorithmic steps of the claim that facilitate pre-computation along with the use of pre-computed data to determine a description of travel itself used for further search or comparison steps.
Does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result? Does the invention produce a technical effect?
The described invention is clearly capable of producing an effect. The output of the claim is some kind of search result or comparison that is based on a description of travel. That description of travel is formulated using precomputed descriptions of travel representing possible legs between for example, a real estate site as a starting point, and a subway station in a transportation network as an intermediate point. While an act of determining and storing precomputed descriptions of travel forms part of the claim, ultimately the purpose of the precomputation according to the specification is to serve to speed up the data retrieval process. This effect is clearly useful, it can make results appear faster for a user, and there is a benefit that is real. However, it is not enough to merely provide a useful result for patentability to be found. If it were, then it is arguable that any of the inventions in Full Court precedents cited in this decision may in fact be patentable. While a mere scheme itself can be said to be “practical and useful”, this is insufficient for a positive finding of patentability (see Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2019] FCA 1956 at [39], Research Affiliates at [114] and RPL Central at [40]).
The new and improved effect purported by the specification is in essence, the saving of time in the processing of data in order to produce a description of travel. This saving of time arises by the performing of tasks in a certain order, in effect pre-preparing data for later use. The saving in time does not arise because of the way in which a computer is operating. Such an effect can be considered in a similar light as the matter in CareFusion 303, Inc. [2021] APO 10 where I found the invention provided for more efficient delivery of medication, the invention as a matter of substance, lying in a realm of merely organising human activity. In the present matter, the invention lies in the realm of organising a mere algorithmic calculation which while tied to a computer, remains a purely “mathematical” and “organisational” exercise. In other words, it is not the computer that is running faster as a physical tool, but that the “algorithm” is running differently with certain steps occurring at certain times. The result of the invention is information in the form of a search or comparison result of a description of travel between points. As a matter of substance, the invention enables the saving of time by conveniently precomputing information that may be used at a later time. While useful and practical and even seemingly quite a good idea, I do not consider that this mode of operation of an algorithm enabling saving of time can be considered as providing for a technical effect. While a crude and broad analogy, the saving of time by “preparing” earlier is a tenet of effective organisation of activity.
Does the invention lie in the generation, presentation, or arrangement of intellectual information?
While the final product of the claimed invention is information, the invention does not simply lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of a piece of information. As above there is an ordering of steps and pre-processing for enabling a faster generation or presentation of information requested by a user. Little can be drawn from this factor to further the analysis of the invention in suit.
Conclusion
Turning to the factors above, I see no convincing points to support patentability. Particularly key is the fact that I see no technical problem solved by the present invention, and no technical effect arising as a matter of substance. The invention defined by the claims uses standard computer technology and function to implement an algorithm that determines a description of travel and uses it in some way in a search or comparison. While a result may be provided to a user faster in terms of their experience, this is a consequence only of the use of the pre-computation steps, which in my reckoning, amount to an improvement in the mere organisational scheme of determining travel descriptions for sets of points in a network and making comparisons between them. As was noted in Encompass at [101]:
“Indeed, the method, as claimed, is no different in principle to the methods claimed in Research Affiliates and RPL Central. Patentable subject matter is not provided simply because the method is a “method … in an electronic processing device”, which itself is not characterised. To find otherwise would be to elevate form over substance.”
I find the algorithmic method of the present invention unpatentable, this method merely implemented in an uncharacterised, standard, or generic electronic processing device. I conclude the invention defined by claims 1-3 is not for a manner of manufacture.
Remainder of the Specification
Turning to the specification as a whole I note a number of embodied aspects of the claimed invention are presented in a high amount of operational detail. For example, mathematical notations and formulas for travel paths are formulated and mathematical algorithms are used to perform optimisations, searches and comparisons. None of these descriptions appears to provide for some kind of technical advance, with standard/well-known shortest path algorithms for optimisation being applied to the problem. Furthermore, the specification points to the storage of travel durations in vector form, travel times being rounded to the closest minute, using one byte of computer memory. Here travel durations are represented as an integer from 0 to 254, with 255 denoting an unknown or too large travel duration.
I see no basis to consider these features as potentially providing for an improvement or advance to computer technology. The specification does not purport an improvement in storage technology, wherein 1 byte of storage is by definition, commonly used to hold 256 different values of information.
I conclude that there is no patentable subject matter in the specification from which an amendment could be drawn to overcome the manner of manufacture objection.
INVENTIVE STEP
Given the nature of my findings in respect of manner of manufacture, I see no need to go further and consider the ground of invention step. There is no patentable subject matter in the specification.
CONCLUSION
I conclude that the clarity objection raised by the examiner cannot be maintained. However, I find that the claimed invention is not directed to a manner of manufacture. I see no material in the specification that would overcome this finding. Therefore, I refuse the application. Any appeal to this decision lies with the Federal Court of Australia, the due date for the filing of such an appeal being twenty-eight (28) days from date of this decision.
Dr N. R. Madsen
Deputy Commissioner of Patents
15
0