McCormick & Company, Incorporated
[2017] APO 62
•14 December 2017
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
McCormick & Company, Incorporated [2017] APO 62
Patent Application: 2013222093
Title:System and method for providing flavor advisement and enhancement
Patent Applicant: McCormick & Company, Incorporated
Delegate: Dr S.D. Barker – Deputy Commissioner of Patents
Decision Date: 14 December 2017
Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 26 October 2017
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objections – invention relates to flavour profile of foods and user preferences implemented on a computer – manner of manufacture – substance of invention lies in a scheme for the presentation of information in a circular column graph – not a manner of manufacture – application refused
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Pizzeys Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys Pty Ltd
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2013222093
Title:System and method for providing flavor advisement and enhancement
Patent Applicant: McCormick & Company, Incorporated
Date of Decision: 14 December 2017
DECISION
I refuse to accept the request and specification.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Patent application 2013222093 (the application) was filed under the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty on 25 February 2013 by McCormick & Company, Incorporated (the applicant). The present matter relates to objections raised during examination of the application. The applicant asked to be heard in relation to those objections, and a hearing was conducted by means of written submissions.
The relevant law
The present application was filed before the commencement of the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (the Raising the Bar Act). However, the request for examination was filed on 31 January 2016 – which is after commencement of the Raising the Bar Act. Consequently, the examination of the present application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) as amended by the Raising the Bar Act. Amendments to sections 7, 40 and 49 of the Act apply to the present case as a consequence of Schedule 1, items 55(1)(e) and 55(4)(b) of the Raising the Bar Act.
The standard of proof that applies to the examination of the present application is the balance of probabilities – I must accept the present application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act.[1] If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application.[2]
[1] Section 49 of the Act as amended.
[2] Explanatory Memorandum to the Raising the Bar Bill at page 54.
THE SPECIFICATION
The specification as filed has 67 pages of description and 30 claims. The applicant has proposed to amend the specification so as to replace the claims in their entirety with a new set of 26 claims. It is the claims as proposed to be amended that I must consider in this decision. The description has not been amended. Throughout this decision, wherever I refer to the application that is the application as proposed to be amended.
The specification states that the field of the invention is a system and method of providing flavour advisement and enhancement.[3] The invention uses a concept called the flavour lifecycle:
"The inventors of the present disclosure have determined that the process of applying flavor can be organized into the flavor lifecycle. Although the invention is not limited to only these stages, exemplary stages of the food and flavor lifecycle are: 1) inspire, 2) anticipate, 3) shop, 4) prepare, and 5) celebrate."[4]
[3] The application at page 1.
[4] The application at page 21.
The lifecycle is shown in Figure 1:
Flavour advisement is stated to be a key need:
"Many cooks are in need of flavour advisement. Whether the cook is an excited newbie who is just starting out and excited to learn or an established culinarian who consistently prepares food from scratch, flavor advisement is needed to help everyone discover flavorful foods they'll love."[5]
[5] The application at page 1.
Flavour advisement is not a term that I am familiar with. However, in the context of the specification I consider that flavour advisement is advice for cooks about recipes or ingredients whose flavour will be enjoyed by those eating the food. The specification teaches that the way in which this is done makes use of a visual representation of the different elements that make up a flavour. This visual representation is referred to as a "flavour mark".[6]
[6] The application at page 22.
The specification discusses flavour advisement in relation to a system:
"Each of these stages may be enhanced using a flavor advisement system. One example of a flavor advisement system is FlavorPrint® created by McCormick®. The flavour advisement system described as follows utilizes FlavorPrint® to illustrate the features of the embodiments of the invention but is not limited thereto.
The flavor advisement system may be represented to a user by way of a user flavour advisement mark which represents each user's unique flavour sensory impression profile."[7]
[7] The application at page 22.
I infer that FlavorPrint® is an example of the invention, and does not form part of the prior art. I note that FlavorPrint® is described on various internet sites (although this is not stated in the specification). For the purposes of this decision I have relied solely on the specification, but the specification appears to be consistent with the information on the internet. This suggests that the invention focuses on the creative aspects of cooking rather than the technical aspects of cooking. I consider that the specification is asserting that the problem it is addressing is the provision of flavour advisement (or recipe recommendations) to a cook.
The embodiment(s) of the invention
The detailed description of the invention then states:
"In a first embodiment, there is described a method of generating a visual representation of a profile. The method includes the steps of obtaining preference information representing preferences of a user with respect to each of a plurality of categories, determining, using a microprocessor, a length of a plurality of graphical elements, each graphical element being assigned to one of the categories, based on the preference information corresponding to the respective category, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative preference for a category with respect to the other categories, and disposing on a computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements each having a display length determined by the determining, the disposing positioning the plurality of graphical elements around a circle such that each of the graphical elements has a portion of an external boundary in contact with an external boundary of the circle at a contact point and such that each of the graphical elements protrudes from the contact point away from the circle in accordance with the determined display length.
According to another embodiment of the method, the preferences of the user include flavor preferences and the categories include flavor categories.
According to another embodiment of the method, the preferences of the user include texture preferences and the categories include texture categories.
According to another embodiment of the method, where the preferences of the user include flavor and texture preferences."[8]
[8] The application at page 4.
It is apparent that the specification asserts that the invention relates to displaying a profile of a person's taste preferences. The profile can relate to the flavour and texture of foods. The categories that make up the profile are displayed as separate graphical elements. The length of the graphical element represents the person's preference for that category (the longer the graphical element, the greater the preference). The graphical elements are disposed around a circle. Figure 3A, reproduced here, provides a way to understand this arrangement.
The specification explains this figure as follows:
"In the example shown in Figure 3A, the user flavor mark is displayed such that each category, which is associated with a particular flavor characteristic or with a particular flavor, is represented according to the intensity indicated in the flavor mark input data 10. Each slice representing a category is represented by a different color and is shown as being longer in length according to the preference of the user. Thus, category 21 shown in Figure 3A represents a category for which the user has higher preference. Category 22 shown in Figure 3A represents a category for which the user has lower preference. The categories are relative representations such that a category with a greatest length represents the characteristic or flavor which the user prefers the most and vice versa. Alternatively, the representations can be relative with respect to sub groups within the total number of categories. Although the categories may be relative the categories may not be mutually exclusive such that more preference for one category does not automatically indicate less preference for another category. However, in an alternative embodiment, the categories may be linked such that preference is mutually exclusive."[9]
[9] The application at page 23
I am aware this style of representation of information in the form of lines or bars radiating from a central point or circle is known generally as a circular column chart (or similar names, such as circular bar chart).
How is the flavour profile generated?
The process of generating flavour preferences is outlined in Figure 8A, reproduced here:
This process is described in greater detail in the following embodiment of the invention (I have inserted copies of the Figures at the relevant points to aid understanding):
"In one embodiment, the user preference input unit 210 is implemented by a web survey. Figures llA-D illustrate an example of a web survey according to one embodiment of the invention. Figure 1lA shows a getting started page 220 which instructs the user regarding the survey process.
Figure 1lB shows an example of a dietary preference selection 221.
In this example, the user is provided with the option of 'eat most things,' 'vegetarian', and 'vegan', however other options relating to dietary preference are also possible. Figure 11 C illustrates an example of determination regarding a user's preference.
This example illustrates that user providing a binary opinion regarding select foods and flavors. The survey can also provide the user with different types of mechanisms to indicate preference such as rating from 1-10 or an indication of several levels of like or dislike. Further detail regarding how dislikes are treated is described later in the description. Figure 1lD illustrates an example of an allergy/intolerance input survey.
The survey may be conducted on an individual or group basis. The individual survey results may also be combined to generate group survey results. The survey may also be conducted on a household basis such that the group is the members of the household.
The user preference input unit 210 may also obtain preference information by using information from external websites or locations such as social networks, which the user has permitted to be accessed. Information from shopper's cards which the user has permitted to be accessed may also be used to obtain the preference information. In addition, tools such as a dinner party kit can be used to obtain preference information from a user or users in a fun and social setting. For example, the dinner party kit could provide an opportunity for multiple people to fill out information before or while attending a dinner or party. This information can be input via the user preference input unit 210 using mobile devices such as a tablet computer, etc. Such activities would allow an interactive way of obtaining preference information."[10]
[10] The application at page 31 – 32.
The way in which the preference information is manipulated is described as follows:
"The preference storage and processing unit 213 organizes and processes the preference information gleaned from the multiple sources such as the survey, shopper data, historical activity, external website information, social network information, demographic information, location information, etc. in order to prepare information about user preferences regarding flavor."[11]
"The flavor mark data generating unit 110 then takes all the information provided by the preference obtaining unit 100 such as likes and dislikes for certain foods, flavors, characteristics, temperatures, contexts, web activity, purchasing data, food and applies a filtering algorithm. This filtering algorithm corrects for factors such as random variance and other skewing factors to provide a more accurate representation of a user's actual flavor preferences."[12]
[11] The application at page 33.
[12] The application at page 34.
The filtering process is not further explained. The information that results can be used to determine the users agreeability to new foods and food styles:
"The flavor mark generating unit 110 additionally utilizes the information filtered by the filtering algorithm and determines the food neophobia of the user. The food neophobia corresponds to the users agreeability to new food or food experiences. The generating unit 110 additionally utilizes the information filtered by the filtering algorithm to determine the food style neophobia. Food style neophobia corresponds to the users agreeability to new food styles. For instance, a user may have a predicted food style based on demographic or location. The food style neophobia determines the user's agreeability to food styles that are different for the predicted food style.
Each of the filtered preference information and neophobia information are utilized by the flavor mark generating unit 110 to obtain information from the flavor reference data storage unit 101. Using these different information sets, a flavor profile is generated for the user by applying the preference information to the reference data. Using this comparison a determination can be made regarding the user's relative preference for any one of the plurality of food categories. This information is then formatted and output as user flavor mark input data 10.
The flavor mark generating unit 110 is able to substitute information based on demographic insights when limited preference information is available. This substitute information can be reduced or removed as more information regarding the user is obtained over time. Because the generation of the user flavor mark input data 10 is an ongoing process, the generation will be performed multiple times. The performance of the generation can be performed each time new information is obtained, at a predetermined interval or based on administrator input.
The demographic insights may be based on information provided by or obtained about the user or may be based on demographic assumptions generated based on location, etc."[13]
[13] The application at page 34 – 35.
More information on how this is done are found in Figure 13:
Steps S46 and S47 seem to use the information to generate the flavour mark:
"In step S46, the relative user preference for each of the flavor categories is determined based on the obtained and determined information found in steps S40, 41A-C, 42, 44, and 45. Further information regarding the determining is described previously with regard to the flavor mark data generating unit 110.
The obtained relative user preference for each of the flavor categories corresponds to the user flavor profile which is included in the user preference profile. The user preference profile also includes, among other information, additional information about the user such as the demographic data and the neophobic characteristics of the user. The user flavor profile may also be applied to a group such as a household. In this embodiment the group would have a user preference profile which includes a user flavor profile.
In step S47, the user flavor mark input data 10 is generated based on the determining performed in step S46. This information may be forwarded to the flavour mark display determining unit 11 and used to generate a user flavor mark or may be forwarded to other systems in the flavor platform for use in providing recommendations or providing various interactions."[14]
[14] The application at page 41.
I have been unable to find any description of how exactly the information is manipulated to produce the flavour mark. Specifically, the filtering algorithm is not disclosed. I conclude that this is regarded as a routine task that does not need to be explained to the reader (since the alternative conclusion would be that the specification has not disclosed the invention in a clear enough and complete enough manner and has not disclosed the best method of performing the invention).
I note that preference information includes information relating to matters beyond flavour, such as food texture,[15] style and preparation time.[16] The preference information complements the flavour preferences.[17]
[15] The application at page 4.
[16] The application at page 18.
[17] The application at page 44.
How does the system use the flavour profile information?
The system stores flavour and characteristic data for a range of known food elements in a "food flavor mark storage unit". The data relates to the characteristics of recipes, food products, dinner menus, culinary dishes, sides, main courses, ingredients, etc.[18] The system searches this data using the user flavour profile to generate a list of recommendations. This process is represented in Figure 16 and Figure 17A:
[18] The application at page 43.
and described in general terms in the specification:
"The food flavor mark storage unit 551 is accessed and searched by the recommendation generating unit 553 when performing the recommendation process."[19]
"The recommendation generation unit 553 generates the user recommendation by applying a scoring algorithm to search results obtained from searching the food flavor mark storage unit based on received user flavor profile and the user preference profile data."[20]
"The results are further filtered based on the attributes provided in the user preference profile."[21]
"Once a sufficient number of recommendations are generated by the recommendation generation unit 553, the results are sorted and returned or presented to the user."[22]
[19] The application at page 43.
[20] The application at page 43.
[21] The application at page 45.
[22] The application at page 45.
The most detailed description is provided by the following passage:
"An example of the process for determining the compatibility between a user and a food product is performed by obtaining the user preference profile information including the user flavor profile data and the flavor profile data of the food product which includes characteristic data of the food product. It is then determined whether the food product includes an ingredient that is highly disliked or for which the user is allergic. The dislike score may include levels of dislike. In addition the flavors of the food product are compared against the user flavor profile and preferences of the user and correlations and similarities are considered. A correction algorithm is performed to ensure more accurate correlation between the likes and dislikes of the user and the food element in question. The dislike is generalized into underlying flavor driver attributes and a probabilistic model is applied to filter out conflicting information. For example, a comparison can also be performed using foods that the user has indicated were liked and the food element in question and this information can be considered. Additional adjustments are performed based on characteristics in the user preference profile such as demographic information, allergy information, healthy eating preferences, diet or food program preferences, ingredient substitution information, type and style of food preference, neophobia information, preparation time preferences, etc."[23]
[23] The application at page 48.
The algorithm that is used for determining compatibility is disclosed as follows:
"Figure 17C illustrates the above example of the process or algorithm for determining the compatibility between a user and a food product as applied"[24]
[24] The application at page 48.
Figure 17C is as follows:
There is nothing in the specification to suggest exactly how the system compares the user profile to known food flavour information. In particular, there is no indication that the graphical representation of the user profile as a circular column chart (as distinct from the data that it represents) is used for the comparison. Rather, it seems much more likely that the system uses the data for each of the flavour elements for the comparison rather than the graphical representation. If I am wrong on this point, then it would follow that the specification has failed to describe an important feature of the invention.
It is apparent that the user information can be used in other ways. One use is to target advertising:
"The advertising targeting engine 574 utilizes the user flavor profile data and user preference profile data to provide targeted advertising data. The targeted advertising data provides specific advertisements based on the preferences of the user. For example, when providing advertisements to a user, data from the user flavor profile and user preference profile can be used to provide targeted and individualized advertisements, which are relevant to the user. As a result, advertisements can be provided that not only use information provided by sources such as cookies, etc., but also use information provided by the user regarding the user's preferences and flavor profile."[25]
[25] The application at page 54.
The advantages of the flavour mark represented as a circular column chart are not apparent. The specification does not contain any discernible technical use of the mark. My reaction to Figure 3A is that the mark is an aesthetically pleasing representation.
The examples
The specification does not contain any specific examples, except for the block diagrams of the process in the Figures, and the website illustrations in the Figures. These have already been discussed where they help to illustrate the invention.
The claims
The claims were proposed to be amended by amendments filed on 31 January 2016 and 10 August 2017. The latter amendment replaces all of the claims, so they are the only claims that need to be considered. The claims as proposed to be amended are made up of 26 claims. The independent claims are numbered 1, 7, 13 and 19. The total claim set appears as an Annex at the end of this decision. Claim 1 is representative of the independent claims:
"A method of generating a visual representation of a flavor profile, comprising:
obtaining preference information representing flavor preferences of a user with respect to each of a plurality of flavor categories;
determining, using a microprocessor, a length of a plurality of graphical elements, each graphical element being assigned to one of the flavor categories, based on the preference information corresponding to the respective flavor category, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative preference for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories; and
disposing on a computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements each having a display length determined by the determining, the disposing positioning the plurality of graphical elements around a circle such that each of the graphical elements has a portion of an external boundary in contact with an external boundary of the circle at a contact point and such that each of the graphical elements protrudes from the contact point away from the circle in accordance with the determined display length."
The first thing to note is that claim 1 is directed to a method. The method results in the generation of a visual representation on a computer screen. The steps of the method are:
·obtain flavour preferences of a user (by any method, either using a computer or otherwise),
·determine a "length" for each graphical element of the flavour preferences based on the relative preferences of the user (this step is carried out by a microprocessor),
·displaying a visual representation of the preferences in the form of elements extending from a circle (this display appearing on a computer display screen). This form of visual representation is essentially a circular column graph.
Claim 7 is also directed to a method of generating a visual representation of a flavor profile in similar terms to claim 1. The main difference is that claim 7 refers to:
"obtaining flavor characteristic information representing flavor characteristics or a product or recipe for each of a plurality of flavor categories".
Claim 7 relates to assembling information about the flavour profile of products or recipes, rather than the flavour preferences of a user. Otherwise the method is the same as for claim 1.
Claim 13 is directed to an apparatus:
"An apparatus for generating a visual representation of a flavor profile, comprising:
at least one microprocessor implementing
an obtaining unit configured to obtain preference information representing flavor preferences of a user with respect to each of a plurality of flavor categories,
a determining unit configured to determine a length of a plurality of graphical elements, each graphical element being assigned to one of the flavor categories, based on the preference information corresponding to the respective flavor category, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative preference for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories, and
a display unit configured to dispose on a computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements each having a display length determined by the determining, the disposing positioning the plurality of graphical elements around a circle such that each of the graphical elements has a portion of an external boundary in contact with an external boundary of the circle at a contact point and such that each of the graphical elements protrudes from the contact point away from the circle in accordance with the determined display length."
It is readily apparent that this apparatus is a computing arrangement that is configured to carry out the steps of the process of claim 1. The apparatus contains a microprocessor, three "units", and programming sufficient to display the visual representation.
Claim 19 is directed to an apparatus that differs only slightly from claim 13. The main difference is in relation to the obtaining unit, which is configured to:
"obtain flavor characteristic information representing flavor characteristics of a product or recipe for each of a plurality of flavor categories"
The apparatus of claim 19 clearly carries out the process of claim 7.
Claims 25 and 26 are discussed in this decision, and deserve a quick mention. Those claims recite:
"25. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that when executed by a computer causes the computer to implement the method according to claim 1.
26. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that when executed by a computer causes the computer to implement the method according to claim 7."
These claims are directed to any non-transitory storage medium that holds a computer program that can be used for the methods of claims 1 or 7.
THE GROUNDS OF OBJECTION
The most recent examination report dated 6 September 2017 raises two grounds of objection: manner of manufacture and inventive step. I will consider each of the grounds in turn.
1. Manner of manufacture
The examiner has raised an objection that the invention as claimed in claims 1 – 26 is not a manner of manufacture.
The law
Section 18(1) of the Act relevantly reads:
Subject to subsection (2), an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim:
(a) is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies;
The classic definition of "manner of manufacture" is set out in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents[26] (NRDC):
"The right question is: 'Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s. 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?' "[27]
[26] [1959] HCA 67; 102 CLR 252.
[27] NRDC at 269, [14].
The court then went on to set out a test in terms relevant to the facts of that case:
"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."[28]
and
"The effect produced by the appellant's method exhibits the two essential qualities upon which 'product' and 'vendible' seem designed to insist. It is a 'product' because it consists in an artificially created state of affairs, discernible by observing over a period the growth of weeds and crops respectively on sown land on which the method has been put into practice. And the significance of the product is economic; for it provides a remarkable advantage, indeed to the lay mind a sensational advantage, for one of the most elemental activities by which man has served his material needs, the cultivation of the soil for the production of its fruits."[29]
[28] NRDC at 275, [22].
[29] NRDC at 277, [25].
However, the High Court was not laying down a precise formulation that can be applied unthinkingly:
"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."[30]
[30] D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35; 258 CLR 334 (Myriad) at [23].
That case-by-case approach must have regard to the substance of the claimed invention, not simply the form of the claim.[31] The point is made most succinctly by Gageler and Nettle JJ in the Myriad case:
"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."[32]
[31] Myriad at [6] and [88].
[32] Myriad at [144].
In Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd[33] (RPL) the Full Court of the Federal Court said the same thing in the context of an invention that was in substance a scheme:
"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. The basis for the analysis starts with the fact that a business method, or mere scheme, is not, per se, patentable. The fact that it is a scheme or business method does not exclude it from properly being the subject of letters patent, but it must be more than that. There must be more than an abstract idea; it must involve the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which the invention is performed. Where the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation. It is not a patentable invention simply to 'put' a business method 'into' a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well- known and understood functions.
Is the mere implementation of an abstract idea in a well-known machine sufficient to render patentable subject matter? Is the artificial effect that arises, because information is stored in RAM and there is communication over the Internet or wifi, sufficient? Does any physical effect give rise to a manner of manufacture? Are the mere presence of an artificial effect and economic utility, without more, sufficient to determine manner of manufacture?
It is not a question of stating precise guidelines but of deciding, in each case, whether the claimed invention, as a matter of substance not form, is properly the subject of a patent."[34]
[33] [2015] FCAFC 177; 115 IPR 461.
[34] RPL at [96] – [98].
The Full Court then went on to discuss a range of considerations that are helpful in the technology of the RPL case. In Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited[35] I summarised those considerations as:
[35] [2016] APO 49; 123 IPR 341.
"I conclude that it is relevant to consider a range of matters. Without seeking to be exhaustive, these include:
·there must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information;
·is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature;
·does the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer;
·does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed;
·does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result;
·can it be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology;
·does the method merely require generic computer implementation;
·is the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea;
·is there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised;
·does the invention involve steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers; and
·does the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information."
It is difficult, if not impossible, to see how these considerations can be addressed without an understanding of the art, including relevant prior art.
If there is any doubt that it is legitimate to look beyond the face of the specification when seeking to determine the substance of the invention, it is clear in Myriad that the majority did not restrict their enquiry to the face of the specification, but had regard to the primer in forming their view of the substance of the invention.[36] Gageler and Nettle JJ refered to the law as requiring "ingenuity that adds to the sum of human knowledge",[37] and considered what the applicant invented in comparison to the existing state of knowledge.[38] Gordon J also noted that the patentee did not "create, make or alter"[39] the specific mutations and polymorphisms. It is clearly necessary to compare the invention as claimed to the prior art to determine what has been added to the sum of human knowledge by the work of the applicant.
[36] The primer is explained in Myriad at [39] – [61]. The primer contained both common general knowledge and relevant prior art: [39].
[37] Myriad at [130].
[38] Myriad at [137], [146].
[39] Myriad at [267].
I am aware that in recent decisions, delegates of the Commissioner have also made reference to the UK decision in Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd; Macrossan’s Application (Aerotel).[40] Lord Justice Jacob, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, set out an approach of (1) construe the claims, (2) identify the actual contribution, (3) ask whether that falls within the area of excluded subject matter, and (4) check whether the contribution is technical in nature.[41] At [43] of Aerotel Jacob LJ said:
"The second step – identify the contribution – is said to be more problematical. How do you assess the contribution? Mr Birss submits the test is workable – it is an exercise in judgment probably involving the problem said to be solved, how the invention works, what its advantages are. What has the inventor really added to human knowledge perhaps best sums up the exercise. The formulation involves looking at substance not form – which is surely what the legislator intended."
[40] [2006] EWCA Civ 1371; [2007] 1 All ER 225
[41] Aerotel at [40]. However, it was noted in IGT v The Comptroller General of Patents [2007] EWHC 1341 (Pat) at [39] that the fourth point is really covered by the third, so is of little importance.
Lord Justice Jacob distinguished the actual contribution from the alleged contribution, and made it clear that it is the former that is significant:
"If an inventor claims a computer when programmed with his new program, it will not assist him if he alleges wrongly that he has invented the computer itself, even if he specifies all the detailed elements of a computer in his claim. In the end the test must be what contribution has actually been made, not what the inventor says he has made."[42]
[42] Aerotel at [44].
Viewed as a whole, this is entirely consistent with the approach of the High Court in Myriad. It is also relevant to note the caution of the Court of Appeal that the determination of the contribution must have regard to the invention as a whole, and not just the individual features of the claims:
"it is the claim as a whole which must be considered when assessing the contribution which the invention has made, and that it is not permissible simply to cut the claim into pieces and then consider those pieces separately and without regard to the way they interact with each other."[43]
[43] Lantana Limited v The Comptroller General of Patents, Design and Trade Marks [2014] EWCA Civ 1463 (Lantana) at [64].
Aerotel and Lantana are entirely consistent with the approach of the High Court in Myriad, and provide a simple encapsulation of the principles in Myriad in the form of the three step approach. Further, I am satisfied that it is legitimate to consider the prior art in order to assess the actual contribution to the art, and thus to determine the substance of the invention.
The objection
The examiner's objection on this ground reads as follows:
"Claims 1 - 26 do not define a manner of manufacture within the meaning of Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990.
The applicant submits that the invention relates to a method, medium and apparatus for producing a visual representation of a flavour profile, including non-native functionality for generating an improved image.
I respectfully disagree with this submission.
The visual representation, as claimed for in claims 1 - 26, which includes means for: disposing on a computer generated display screen a plurality of graphical elements each having a determined display length, the disposing positioning the plurality of graphical elements around a circle such that each of the graphical elements has a portion of an external boundary in contact with an external boundary of the circle at a contact point and such that each of the graphical elements protrudes from the contact point away from the circle in accordance with the determined display length, amounts to no more than well known data visualisation methods, such as radial column charts, sector charts and rose charts, as disclosed in D3 (Pages 74 - 75, 440).
In light of the claimed visual representation method being well known in the art, it is considered that the substance of the invention, wherein the inventor's ingenuity lies, merely relates to visualisation of flavour profile data. This is not patentable subject matter.
Use of a computer to generate well known visual representations, such as a radial column graph, is not considered to result in an improved image or any improvement in the computer, irrespective of the data being visualised."
The applicant's responses
The applicant's response to the first examination report stated:
"At item 1 the Examiner alleges that previous claims 1 to 6 are not directed to patentable subject matter. In response thereto, we have significantly revised the claims, and respectfully submit that they are directed to a manner of manufacture. In particular, the replacement claim set is identical to the granted claims from US Patent No. 9,633,456.
The claimed invention directly parallels that of International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner [1991] FCA 265 [sic], where the technical improvement lies in the result that is displayed. The amended claims relate to a method, medium and apparatus for producing a visual representation of a flavor profile. It is immediately apparent that the invention as claimed is for more than mere intellectual information, as the invention does not claim a mere 'flavour profile'. Instead, the claimed invention is providing non-native functionality, which as a result, generates an improved image. This is clearly an improvement in the functionality of a computing device, and is far from 'an abstract idea or scheme' as alleged by the Examiner. Furthermore, the Examiner's contention that 'the contribution of the claimed invention is neither in an improvement to the operation of the computer nor in its application in the working of the scheme' is simply incorrect, as the invention involves steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers.
As in IBM v Commissioner of Patents [1991] FCA 265 [sic], the present invention leads to an improved image being displayed. An improved image was considered by the court in IBM to lead to an improved computer, despite the fact that a standard computing device implemented the claimed invention through the implementation of standard programming.
In the present case, as with IBM, what is new is the application of the selected methods to computers, and in particular, to the production of the visual representation by computer. This involves steps which are foreign to the normal use of computers, and for that reason, to be inventive. The production of an improved visual representation is a commercially useful effect in food manufacture and preparation.
The invention results in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed. The claims here do not preempt all ways of producing a visual representation of a flavour profile, but rather recite a specific implementation with specific features that limit the claim to a specific process. The claimed invention closely parallels that of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49, in which it was found that the configuration of a machine to present information in a particular way was a manner of manufacture. In this case, the display is a physical integer which embodies the visual representation, and achieves a practical and useful result.
In view of the discussion above, we respectfully submit that the current invention is directed to a manner of manufacture. The necessary use of a computer in the application significantly contributes to the substance of the invention as outlined above, and the current invention produces an improved practical and useful result that is considered novel and inventive, and goes well beyond mere intellectual information."
The applicant also provided written submissions for the hearing. Those submissions summarise the relevant law in similar terms to my discussion above. The submissions then state that the decision in International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner[44] (IBM) is particularly relevant:
[44] [1991] FCA 625; 22 IPR 417.
"The claimed invention directly parallels that of International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner [1991] FCA 265 [sic], where the technical improvement lay in the 'production of the desired curve by a computer' (IBM at [16]). The claims relate to a method, apparatus and software for producing a visual representation of a flavour profile … the invention as claimed involves a new interface through which a user may interact with the computer to provide more efficient flavour advisement and enhancement.
As in IBM, the present invention leads to an improved image (the 'visual representation' being displayed. Notably, an improved image was considered by the court in IBM to lead to an improved computer, despite the fact that a standard computing device implemented the claimed invention through the implementation of programming. …
In the present case, as with IBM, what is new is the application of the selected methods to computers, and in particular, to the production of the visual representation of a flavour profile by computer. This involves steps which are foreign to the normal use of computers, and for that reason, to be inventive. The production of an improved visual representation is a commercially useful effect in flavour advisement.
Furthermore, and unlike IBM, the present claims involve a new and nonobvious computing apparatus. As discussed at page 42 onwards, the apparatus comprises a flavor recommendation engine 501, the flavor circle engine 502, the flavor marketing engine 503 and the flavorr analytics engine 504 implemented using a computer based system as seen in Fig. 34. None of the prior art cited by the Examiner teaches or suggests the described computer based system.
It is this novel and inventive computer-based system, the design, function and use of which is described in great detail, that is appropriately considered the substance of the invention' ..
The improvement lies in the system as a whole, in the interaction between the various components, and in the interaction of the system with the user.
Alternatively, the invention results in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed. The claims here do not pre-empt all ways of producing a visual representation of a flavour profile, but rather recite a specific implementation with specific features that limit the claim to a specific process. The claimed invention closely parallels that of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49, in which it was found that the configuration of a machine to present information in a particular way was a manner of manufacture. In the present case, a display is a physical integer which embodies the visual representation, and achieves a practical and useful result.
Even if it were to be argued that the invention comprises generic computer components that individually perform merely generic computer functions, this would ignore that these allegedly generic features are able in combination to perform functions that are not generic computer functions and therefore amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (and are thus a manner of manufacture). In this case, the present claims include a novel series of interactions which happen to be implemented by a novel computer. At worst, we are using a known computer to serve a completely new purpose - and certainly not using the computer to operate in the normal or expected way, or an analogous purpose." [45]
[45] Written submissions at [36] – [43].
What is the subject matter of the claims?
The subject matter of the claims is a method (claims 1 – 12), an apparatus (claims 13 – 24), and a computer readable storage medium (claim 25 and 26). The apparatus and the storage medium are characterised by features that reflect, to a greater or lesser extent dependent on the claim, the steps of the method.
The method could be run using internet connected devices or on a stand-alone computing device.
What was the state of the art?
The specification relates to flavour advisement, but does not set out the state of the art or recite any prior art on this subject.
The first examination report raised an objection of lack of inventive step in light of US 6978243 (the patent). The patent is useful to understand the state of the art. The patent is directed to a method of collection and display of sensory attributes. The nature of the method is set out in column 1 of the patent:
"the present invention comprises a method for visually presenting the attributes of a sensory perception comprising:
(a) providing a subject;
(b) providing the subject with a sensory perception scale on a computing device containing a plurality of attributes, said sensory perception scale having variable positions;
(c) providing the subject with a test sample and requesting said subject to sample the test sample;
(d) asking the subject to rate the attributes of the samples by manipulating the positions of the perception scale; and
(e) providing the position of the variable position scale to a computing means, said computing means providing a visual interpretation on a screen of the attributes of the sample."The products that can be sampled are very broad, and not limited to foods, although foods and beverages are explicitly mentioned in the background to the invention. The attributes that can be assessed are similarly broad, as listed in column 2:
"Within the taste modality (including the basic tastes, as well as flavor, texture, temperature, other sensations experienced in the mouth), attributes that can be tested include but are not limited to: sweetness, saltiness, bitterness, sourness, mintiness, coolness, grittiness, burning, biting, tingling, bad after taste, metallic and the like.
Within the olfactory modality (smell) attributes that can be tested include but are not limited to citrus, floral, fruity, woody, spicy, leathery, herbaceous, musk, amber, oriental and the like.
Within the visual modality attributes that can be tested include but are not limited to: color (saturation, hue, brightness), shape (angular, roundness), length, and the like.
Within the tactile modality (touch) attributes that can be tested include but are not limited to: smoothness/roughness, thermal, chemosensory, pain, and the like.
Within the auditory modality (hearing), attributes that can be tested include but are not limited to: sound quality, pitch, timbre, and the like.
Within perception of emotional states, attributes that can be tested include but are not limited to: moods or other internal states such as happy, sad, angry, irritated, relaxed, excited, stressed, sensual and the like."
The information that is collected is displayed in a pie chart. An example of such a display is given in Figure 3:
I am satisfied that the collection of information, including flavour profiles, was part of the prior art. The information could also include emotional information, such as like or do not like. This is consistent with the way that the present application describes its invention. The present application provides no detail on the elements that make up the flavour profile (except in an indicative way), and no detail on how the elements are determined (except by an indicative reference to FlavorPrint®). The present application provides no detail on the way that the flavour information is filtered and manipulated prior to display (other than to state that it is done). There is no evidence that suggests that circular column graphs of flavour were part of the prior art.
What is the substance of the claims?
When determining the substance of the invention it is important to consider the claimed invention as a whole, not just the individual parts.
The examiner has stated that they consider the substance of the invention is the visualisation of flavour profile data. The applicant has stated that the substance of the invention is "this novel and inventive computer-based system".[46]
[46] Written submissions at [40].
I will start with the method of claims 1 – 12. The subject matter of these claims is a method of generating a visual representation of a flavour profile on a computer screen. The state of the art already encompassed a method of visualising a flavour profile with most of these elements. In the absence of information as to how these activities are carried out, I conclude that they cannot (individually or collectively) be a contribution to the art. If I am wrong, and any of these matters are actually a contribution to the art, then the specification does not describe them in a way that is clear enough and complete enough, and does not provide a best method of performance.
The specification places its emphasis on two things - the generic processing steps that would be used by a computer to carry out the FlavorPrint® system, and the design of the screens that are displayed on a computer when running the FlavorPrint® system. I cannot see that the invention solves a technical problem within or outside the computer. The computer is a generic computer which is characterised by software that can carry out the method. The applicant asserted that the invention involves a new and non-obvious computing apparatus, and that the invention results in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed. The "newness" of the apparatus is solely the consequence of the new application software installed and running on it. The "improvement in the functioning" of the apparatus is only in respect of its ability to display a visual representation of a flavour profile. This functioning is a normal and expected consequence of the new application software and arises solely from this software. The effect produced by the software is the presentation of the visual representation of a flavour profile.
It is not reasonable to characterise this invention as an improvement in computer technology. Computer processing was part of the prior art. The difference over existing computers lies in the software that is being run to allow the user to input information and receive recommendations. The production of a graphical representation of data is not foreign to the normal operation of a computer. Indeed, most of us have used spreadsheets to generate graphical representations of data for a very long time. It seems almost unnecessary to say that this is normal.
The direct result that is achieved is the matching of users to recipes. This is an alternative to the user reading a recipe and making an informed guess that it sounds like something they would like. The application can be seen as providing a practical and useful result for cooks.
When deciding the balance of these considerations, it is apparent that they lie heavily to one side. The substance of the method claims 1 – 6 lies in a scheme for gathering user input in relation to flavour and displaying a graphical representation as a circular column graph. It follows that claims to such a scheme are not directed to a manner of manufacture. The substance of claims 7 ‑ 12 lies in a similar scheme for gathering input in relation to the flavour of products or recipes and displaying a graphical representation as a circular column graph. It follows that these claims are also not directed to a manner of manufacture.
Turning now to the apparatus claims 13 – 24, these claims define the apparatus by reference to a microprocessor, an obtaining unit, a determining unit and a display unit. The units are not necessarily physical devices, but may be processing capacity within a computing device. The apparatus is characterised by the processing that is carried out. That is to say, the apparatus is simply a vehicle to carry out the method of claims 1 – 12. The only change caused to the apparatus by the method is that the computer can display a flavour profile in the form of a circular column graph. There is nothing to suggest that the method achieves a technical effect in the apparatus or solves a problem in the operation of the computer. The substance of the apparatus claims is the same as that of the method claims that they implement: a scheme for the presentation of information, which is not a manner of manufacture.
Finally, I refer to the computer readable storage medium of claims 25 and 26. The only feature that characterises the storage media is the program that is stored on it. That program is defined as one that causes the computer to implement the method of claims 1 or 7. It is clear that the substance of these claims is the same as that of the method claims that they implement: a scheme for the presentation of information, which is not a manner of manufacture.
Analogy with IBM and Aristocrat
The applicant relied heavily on an analogy with the IBM case. In IBM the invention was a method of producing a visual representation of a curve. Burchett J considered that the claims should be understood as relating to the context of the operation of computers,[47] and in that context the production of an improved curve image was "a commercially useful effect in computer graphics".[48] In the present case the graphical representation of the user profile as a circular column graph does not seem to have any effect. The system does not use the graphical representation (as distinct from the data used to generate the graphical representation) in the subsequent processing. Rather, the circular column graph seems to be an attractive mode of representing the profile to the user.
[47] IBM at [8].
[48] IBM at [16].
The applicant also sought to draw an analogy with the following statement in IBM:
"so here, it is not suggested there is anything new about the mathematics of the invention. What is new is the application of the selected mathematical methods to computers, and in particular, to the production of the desired curve by computer. This is said to involve steps which are foreign to the normal use of computers and, for that reason, to be inventive."[49]
[49] IBM at [16].
The applicant contended:
"In the present case, as with IBM, what is new is the application of the selected methods to computers, and in particular, to the production of the visual representation of a flavour profile by a computer. This involves steps which are foreign to the normal use of computers, and for that reason, to be inventive. The production of an improved visual representation is a commercially useful effect in flavour advisement."[50]
[50] Written submissions at [38].
The difficulty with this argument is that the graphical presentation of data is not foreign to the normal use of computers. We are all very familiar with the use of spreadsheets, for instance, to produce graphs from data. The algorithms used to process and filter the profile information are not specified in either the claim or the description of the present application. Consequently I cannot form a view whether these processes are the sorts of processes that are foreign to the normal use of computers. This leads me to conclude that there are significant differences between the facts in the IBM case and the present application.
The applicant also referred to the Aristocrat decision:
"The claimed invention closely parallels that of Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49, in which it was found that the configuration of a machine to present information in a particular way was a manner of manufacture. In the present case, a display is a physical integer which embodies the visual representation, and achieves a practical and useful result."[51]
[51] Written submissions at [42].
I am well aware of the facts of the Aristocrat case, and they are very different to the present case. The particular way in which the information was presented in the Aristocrat case led to a technical advantage in the gaming machine. No such advantage is suggested in this case. The flavour profile information is presented in an attractive way on the screen, but that presentation does not facilitate the subsequent use of the profile to suggest recipes that the user may wish to try. While the specification does not explain how the suggestion of recipes is carried out, I consider that it is likely to be by using the underlying data that is represented by the graphical display, and not by using the graphical display.
Conclusion
The substance of the invention is a scheme for the presentation of information as a circular column graph. The substance is the same for all of the claims. It is well established that schemes are not a manner of manufacture. The words of RPL seem particularly appropriate:
"Simply putting a business method or scheme into a computer is not patentable unless there is an invention in the way in which the computer carries out the scheme or method."[52]
[52] RPL at [107].
I am satisfied that the invention as claimed in all claims is not directed to a manner of manufacture. Further, I can see no subject matter in the specification that could be considered a manner of manufacture. It follows that this ground of objection cannot be overcome by amendment.
2. Inventive step
The examiner also raised an objection that claims 1 – 26 lack inventive step in the light of two documents:
· HARRIS, "Information Graphics, A Comprehensive Illustrated Reference" (referred to as D3); and
· MARKOVAARA-KOIVISTO et al, "MATLAB script for analysing and visualizing scanline data", Computers & Geosciences, 40, (2012), pp 185 – 193 (referred to as D4).
In view of my finding that there is a lack of manner of manufacture, and that this ground cannot be overcome by amendment, it is not necessary to consider whether there is also a lack of inventive step.
CONCLUSION
The invention defined by all of the claims is not directed to a manner of manufacture. I can see no subject matter in the specification that could be considered a manner of manufacture. Consequently it is appropriate to refuse the application rather than allow an opportunity to amend.
Dr S.D. Barker
Deputy Commissioner of PatentsANNEX: The claims
1. A method of generating a visual representation of a flavor profile, comprising:
obtaining preference information representing flavor preferences of a user with respect to each of a plurality of flavor categories;
determining, using a microprocessor, a length of a plurality of graphical elements, each graphical element being assigned to one of the flavor categories, based on the preference information corresponding to the respective flavor category, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative preference for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories; and
disposing on a computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements each having a display length determined by the determining, the disposing positioning the plurality of graphical elements around a circle such that each of the graphical elements has a portion of an external boundary in contact with an external boundary of the circle at a contact point and such that each of the graphical elements protrudes from the contact point away from the circle in accordance with the determined display length.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein each flavor category represents a different sensory flavor which is perceived by the user.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative preference for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories such that a greater length indicates a greater relative preference for the category and a shorter length indicates a lower relative preference for the category.
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the disposing further comprises disposing on the computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements such that each of the graphical elements is in contact with at least two other graphical elements in addition to the contact point with the circle.
5. The method according to claim 1, wherein the disposing further comprises positioning the plurality of graphical elements around the circle at predetermined positions, the predetermined positions each being associated with one of the plurality of categories.
6. The method according to claim 1, wherein the disposing further comprises positioning the plurality of graphical elements around the circle at predetermined positions, the predetermined positions each being associated with a category group corresponding to at least two categories of the plurality of categories.
7. A method of generating a visual representation of a flavor profile, comprising:
obtaining flavor characteristic information representing flavor characteristics of a product or recipe for each of a plurality of flavor categories;
determining, using a microprocessor, a length of a plurality of graphical elements, each graphical element being assigned to one of the flavor categories, based on the flavor characteristic information corresponding to the respective flavour category, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative value for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories; and
disposing on a computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements each having a display length determined by the determining, the disposing positioning the plurality of graphical elements around a circle such that each of the graphical elements has a portion of an external boundary in contact with an external boundary of the circle at a contact point and such that each of the graphical elements protrudes from the contact point away from the circle in accordance with the determined display length.
8. The method according to claim 7, wherein each flavor category represents a different sensory flavor which is perceived by a user partaking of the product or recipe.
9. The method according to claim 7, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative preference for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories such that a greater length indicates a greater relative value for the category and a shorter length indicates a lower relative value for the category.
10. The method according to claim 7, wherein the disposing further comprises disposing on the computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements such that each of the graphical elements is in contact with at least one other graphical element in addition to the contact point with the circle.
11. The method according to claim 7, wherein the disposing further comprises positioning the plurality of graphical elements around the circle at predetermined positions, the predetermined positions each being associated with one of the plurality of categories.
12. The method according to claim 7, wherein the disposing further comprises positioning the plurality of graphical elements around the circle at predetermined positions, the predetermined positions each being associated with a category group corresponding to at least two categories of the plurality of categories.
13. An apparatus for generating a visual representation of a flavor profile, comprising:
at least one microprocessor implementingan obtaining unit configured to obtain preference information representing flavor preferences of a user with respect to each of a plurality of flavor categories,
a determining unit configured to determine a length of a plurality of graphical elements, each graphical element being assigned to one of the flavor categories, based on the preference information corresponding to the respective flavor category, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative preference for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories, and
a display unit configured to dispose on a computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements each having a display length determined by the determining, the disposing positioning the plurality of graphical elements around a circle such that each of the graphical elements has a portion of an external boundary in contact with an external boundary of the circle at a contact point and such that each of the graphical elements protrudes from the contact point away from the circle in accordance with the determined display length.
14. The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein each flavor category represents a different sensory flavor which is perceived by the user.
15. The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative preference for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories such that a greater length indicates a greater relative preference for the category and a shorter length indicates a lower relative preference for the category.
16. The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the display unit is further configured to dispose on the computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements such that each of the graphical elements is in contact with at least two other graphical elements in addition to the contact point with the circle.
17. The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the display unit is further configured to position the plurality of graphical elements around the circle at predetermined positions, the predetermined positions each being associated with one of the plurality of categories.
18. The apparatus according to claim 13, wherein the display unit is further configured to position the plurality of graphical elements around the circle at predetermined positions, the predetermined positions each being associated with a category group corresponding to at least two categories of the plurality of categories.
19. An apparatus for generating a visual representation of a flavor profile, comprising:
at least one microprocessor implementing
an obtaining unit configured to obtain flavor characteristic information representing flavor characteristics of a product or recipe for each of a plurality of flavor categories,
a determining unit configured to determine a length of a plurality of graphical elements, each graphical element being assigned to one of the flavor categories, based on the flavor characteristic information corresponding to the respective flavour category, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative value for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories, and
a display unit configured to dispose on a computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements each having a display length determined by the determining, the disposing positioning the plurality of graphical elements around a circle such that each of the graphical elements has a portion of an external boundary in contact with an external boundary of the circle at a contact point and such that each of the graphical elements protrudes from the contact point away from the circle in accordance with the determined display length.
20. The apparatus according to claim 19, wherein each flavor category represents a different sensory flavor which is perceived by a user partaking of the product or recipe.
21. The apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the length of each graphical element indicates the relative preference for a flavor category with respect to the other flavor categories such that a greater length indicates a greater relative value for the category and a shorter length indicates a lower relative value for the category.
22. The apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the display unit is further configured to dispose on the computer generated display screen the plurality of graphical elements such that each of the graphical elements is in contact with at least one other graphical element in addition to the contact point with the circle.
23. The apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the display unit is further configured to position the plurality of graphical elements around the circle at predetermined positions, the predetermined positions each being associated with one of the plurality of categories.
24. The apparatus according to claim 19, wherein the display unit is further configured to position the plurality of graphical elements around the circle at predetermined positions, the predetermined positions each being associated with a category group corresponding to at least two categories of the plurality of categories.
25. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that when executed by a computer causes the computer to implement the method according to claim 1.
26. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a program that when executed by a computer causes the computer to implement the method according to claim 7.
3
6
0