Nuctech Company Limited - [2021] APO 41

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Nuctech Company Limited [2021] APO 41
Patent Application: 2016327871

Title:Smart security inspection system and method

Patent Applicant: Nuctech Company Limited

Delegate:Greg Powell – Deputy Commissioner of Patents

Decision Date: 11 October 2021

Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 28 November 2019 and 31 July 2020

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 45 – examiner’s objection – security inspection – whether invention is a manner of manufacture – business innovation – alleged invention not a manner of manufacture – section 40 – undue burden – specification does not contain a clear enough and complete enough disclosure – no prospects of overcoming issues – application refused

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: AJ Park, Sydney

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2016327871

Title:Smart security inspection system and method

Patent Applicant: Nuctech Company Limited
Date of Decision: 11 October 2021
DECISION

The invention is not a manner of manufacture. In addition, the invention is not disclosed in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough. I see no prospect for amendments which would overcome the described deficiencies.
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION

Patent application 2016327871 (the present application) was filed by Nuctech Company Limited (the applicant) on 4 August 2016 under the provisions of the Patent Cooperation Treaty as international application PCT/CN2016/093278 claiming priority from Chinese application CN 201510605253.6 filed on 21 September 2015.
The present application was filed after 15 April 2013. The fate of the present application is as a consequence governed by the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012. These amendments included the introduction of new section 49(1). Under this provision, I must accept the present application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it complies with the requirements of the Act. If I am not so satisfied, I can refuse the present application.
A first examination report was issued on 31 July 2018 raising objections in relation to manner of manufacture and inventive step. The applicant responded to the first examination report on 29 March 2019 by way of written submissions and proposed amendments to the specification. A second examination report issued on 23 April 2019 maintaining the objections to manner of manufacture and inventive step. Another response was filed on 18 June 2019 with further proposed amendments and arguments. A third examination report issued on 15 July 2019 maintaining the manner of manufacture objection. The inventive step objection was not maintained. However, an objection in relation to a lack of clear enough and complete enough disclosure for the claimed invention was raised.
The applicant subsequently requested to be heard on 30 July 2019. Accompanying the request were further arguments as to the objections. Following notice that the hearing would be held via written submissions, the applicant filed written submissions on 28 November 2019. In addition, following the decisions from the Federal Court in Watson v The Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCAFC 56 (Full Bench on 31 March 2020), Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 (Full Bench on 21 May 2020) and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCA 778 (5 June 2020), I invited the applicant to provide further submissions discussing the relevance (if any) of these decisions to the present case. Additional submissions were received on 31 July 2020.
As amendments have been proposed, this decision is based upon the statements of proposed amendments filed up to an including 18 June 2019, this decision is based upon the specification as proposed to be amended.
Finally, while the final date for acceptance of the application was 31 July 2019, sub-regulation 13.4(1)(g) extends the time for gaining acceptance to 3 months (or longer if appropriate) from the date of the present decision.
The Specification
Background to the present invention
The invention relates to a security inspection system. The description begins by noting that existing security inspection systems generally used in public places such as border checkpoints, airports, railway stations and bus stations play an important role in preventing harm to the public that can occur when criminals commit crimes with prohibited articles such a knives and guns. The specification notes that current security inspection channels have various security inspection devices and inspection depends on the coordination of security inspectors.
The specification notes that this arrangement has disadvantages of high labour costs, low efficiency and disordered management of passengers and their baggage. The specification notes that a highly integrated, security inspection device is required to address these issues and reduce labour costs. The specification notes that it is not possible to have a smart security inspection system with the current security inspection channels.
In essence, the system of the invention is composed of:
(a)an information input area that has an information input unit that gathers information of the person to be inspected;
(b)a baggage unpacking area downstream of the information input area that has a baggage unpacking unit which receives (in some way) information about the person and:
(i)generates a baggage identifier for the piece of baggage of the person to be inspected; and
(ii)links that identifier to the information about the person;
(c)a security inspection area downstream of the baggage unpacking area with a security inspection unit that obtains (from somewhere) pre-stored risk information given the information about the person to be inspected, where, in the security inspection area:
(i)“differentiated security inspections” is performed on the person and/or the baggage according to the risk information obtained; and
(ii)the unit sends the data obtained by the inspection to a centralised data processing unit;
(d)a data processing area with a centralised data processing unit which receives (in some way) the data obtained from the inspection unit, evaluates the person and the baggage according to the received data and:
(i)generates an inspection result indicator; and
(ii)links that result indicator with the information about the inspected person;
(e)where the units of (a), (b), (c) and (d) are all communicatively connected to a server.
The specification also discloses a method in like terms carrying out the steps identified above.
The specification also mentions the possibility of a number of unpacking stations in the baggage unpacking unit and a baffle gate at the entrance to the baggage unpacking unit, with the baffle gate being controlled by the server to admit only the number of people who are to be, and/or whose bags are to be, inspected. There is also mention of an image acquisition unit which obtains an image of the baggage being inspected before it enters the security inspection image unit, and links the image to the baggage identifier. The server is said to match the information about the person to be inspected with the data from the inspection unit and the inspection result indicator and stores them.
The specification states (at [0016]):
“The smart security inspection system and method according to the present disclosure are capable of obtaining the risk information related to the person to be inspected according to the information of the person to be inspected, checking the person to be inspected and the baggage to be inspected using differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods according to different risk information, and thus improving the overall identification accuracy. The inspection result of the person to be inspected and that of the baggage to be inspected are bound to the information of the person to be inspected and stored, such that the inspection accuracy and the traceability of the inspection process can be improved.”
Figure 1 is a schematic diagram of a layout of the invention.
In summary, the smart security inspection system includes an information input area 2 for obtaining information about the person to be inspected and a baggage unpacking area 3 wherein a baggage identifier is distributed to a piece of baggage belonging to the person to be inspected and bound with the corresponding information; both the information input area and the baggage unpacking unit are located upstream of a security inspection area 4. Also present is a server 1 and a centralised data processing unit 5.
In essence, a person provides their information at the information input unit 20 and moves to the baggage unpacking area. Information may be provided by, for example, the scanning of the person’s boarding pass, but could also include biometric identifiers like facial features, fingerprint, iris, images, voice, movements, etc. In the baggage unpacking area, information about the person is (again) obtained by the baggage unpacking unit 30 possibly by scanning the boarding pass, or using biometric identifiers, of the person, but possibly by accessing the server. The information is linked to an unpacking post 31. A security inspection tray is distributed (either manually or automatically) at the unpacking post 31 and the person takes out objects in their baggage that should be checked separately (such as such as computers and mobile phones) and places them in the tray along with their baggage. A baggage identifier is generated. The identifier may be provided on, or independent of, the tray, but it is linked to the information about the person. The specification states that the identifier could be a bar code, a two-dimensional code, an RFID tag, a specific pattern and the like, or could be something else. To avoid crowding in the baggage unpacking area, a baffle gate is used to control entry of persons. The baffle gate is connected with the server and, depending on the number of the persons to be inspected compared to the number of the baggage unpacking stations, either prevents entry or allows persons to enter to take one of the unoccupied baggage unpacking stations.
Having loaded baggage into the tray, a conveying system conveys the tray to the baggage check area 6 of the security inspection area, while the person to be inspected proceeds to the body check area 7 of the security inspection area. The person and their baggage are inspected simultaneously.
The body check area contains a human-body machine-check unit 71 and a human body manual check unit. The human-body machine-check unit obtains the information about the person to be inspected and obtains pre-stored risk information (e.g. a higher risk of carrying explosives, a higher risk of carrying cold arms, a higher risk of carrying chemicals, etc.) according to the information of the person to be inspected (I note here that no material is given in the specification as to where this risk information comes from). The unit may perform a portal-type metal detection. If the human-body machine-check unit raises an alarm upon checking the person, an operator may perform a manual check either via a body check or using a hand-held security inspection device. The results of the inspection are linked to the information of the person inspected. After passing the inspection the person to be inspected can go to baggage pick-up area to collect their inspected baggage.
In the baggage check area, a camera takes an image of the baggage before it moves to the security inspection imaging unit 61, and the image is linked to the baggage identifier (which is linked to the person’s information). The security inspection imaging unit 61 obtains the baggage identifier, obtains the information of the person to be inspected (given the link between these two items) and obtains the pre-stored risk information according to the information of the person to be inspected. The imaging unit then conducts an initial radiation imaging, preferably x-ray, on the baggage. The baggage is then subject to differentiated security inspection based on the pre-stored risk information and the results of the radiation imaging. The information obtained by the inspection is sent to the centralised data processing unit 50 which is then evaluated. The specification states:
“The security inspection imaging unit evaluates and sorts the inspected baggage according to the security image from the radiation imaging. For example, the security inspection operator evaluates according to his/her own judgment. If it is suspected that the baggage to be inspected contains suspected objects, the security inspection operator marks (e.g., using a hand-held device) the security inspection tray bound to the baggage to be inspected, such that the baggage will be checked carefully. If there is no suspected object, the baggage to be inspected will be conveyed to a designated area from which the inspected person can take his/her baggage away.” (my emphasis)
The specification notes that the inspected luggage may be manually sorted or may be automatically sorted by a baggage sorting device 62. Marked baggage proceeds forward, while unmarked baggage will be diverted to an area where the person can collect it. Marked baggage is checked in the re-check unit 63. The re-checking can involve a manual unpacking of the baggage to determine whether there is actually any suspected object in the baggage. According to the specification:
“[w]hen the inspected baggage is suspected, the security inspection operator tells the person to be inspected to go to the re-check unit 63 in the baggage check area 6. The re-check unit 63 obtains the baggage identifier of the suspected baggage, and obtains the baggage check data (including the baggage check images, the baggage pictures, etc.) and the picture of the passenger according to the baggage identifier. The baggage then is unpacked and the suspected objects are found with reference to the baggage check data. The suspected objects are further confirmed (finding the person to be inspected according to the baggage). The security inspection operator can also obtain the biological features (e.g., facial features, fingerprint, iris, pictures, etc.) of the person to be inspected, find the pictures of baggage corresponding to the person to be inspected, and find the baggage according to the pictures of baggage (finding the baggage according to the person to be inspected). Then, the baggage from which the suspected objects have been taken out and the tray are sent back to the security inspection imaging unit 61 for re-check. The security inspection operator asks the person to be inspected about the information of the suspected objects, and chooses a response and solution according to the specific types of the suspected objects or further inspects the suspected objects by other inspection devices. If the re-check unit 63 detects the inspected baggage is normal, the baggage will be conveyed to the designated area from which the inspected person will take his/her baggage away. According to the present disclosure, the biological features of the person to be inspected can be automatically identified, the suspected baggage corresponding to the person to be inspected is found, and the suspected baggage is unpacked and checked in front of the person to be inspected.”
The results of the check are linked to the person’s information.
Optionally, an empty tray identification and collection system is included at the end of baggage check area 6 which conveys empty trays to the unpacking unit 30 for reuse.
The claims
The specification, as proposed to be amended on 18 June 2020, has 10 claims of which claims 1 and 6 are independent. Claims 1 and 6 as proposed to be amended are as follows:
“1. A smart security inspection system, comprising:
a server, an information input unit in an information input area, a baggage unpacking unit in a baggage packing/unpacking area that comprises a plurality of baggage unpacking stations, a security inspection unit comprising a security inspection imaging machine and a human-body check machine in a security inspection area, a baggage sorting device and a centralized data processing unit in a processing area;
the baggage packing/unpacking area is arranged upstream of the security inspection area;
the information input area is arranged upstream of the baggage packing/unpacking area, the processing area is arranged far away or close to the security inspection area;
the information input unit, the baggage unpacking unit, the security inspection unit and the centralized data processing unit are in communication connection with the server, respectively;
the information input unit obtains information of a person to be inspected by scanning the person to be inspected or scanning an identity document of the person; the baggage unpacking unit obtains the information of the person to be inspected and distributes a baggage identifier to a piece of baggage to be inspected of the person to be inspected;
the baggage unpacking unit binds the baggage identifier and the information of the person to be inspected;
the security inspection unit obtains pre-stored risk information according to the information of the person to be inspected, performs differentiated security inspections on the person to be inspected and the baggage by using differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods according to the risk information, and sends obtained data to the centralized data processing unit;
the centralized data processing unit evaluates the person to be inspected and the baggage according to the data, generates a security inspection result, and binds the security inspection data and the security inspection result with the information of the person to be inspected;
the baggage sorting device is arranged downstream of the security inspection unit, and if the inspected baggage is conveyed to the baggage sorting device and there is still no determination whether the inspected baggage contains any suspected objects, a suspected baggage delivery device is actuated automatically to deliver the baggage to a suspected baggage conveying device for further inspection.”
“6 A smart security inspection method based on the smart security inspection system of any of claims 1-5, comprising the following steps:
distributing, with a baggage unpacking unit, a baggage identifier to a piece of baggage to be inspected of a person to be inspected and binding the baggage identifier to information of the person to be inspected at a baggage unpacking station;
identifying, with a security inspection unit, the baggage identifier, obtaining the information of the person to be inspected according to the baggage identifier, obtaining pre-stored risk information according to the information of the person to be inspected, performing, with a centralized data processor, differentiated security inspections on the person to be inspected and the baggage by using differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods according to the risk information, performing centralized processing on obtained data, and binding obtained security inspection result to the information of the person to be inspected; and
automatically delivering, with a suspected baggage delivery device, the inspected baggage to a suspected baggage conveying device for further inspection if the inspected baggage is conveyed to a baggage sorting device downstream of the security inspection unit and there is still no determination whether the inspected baggage contains any suspected objects.”
There are two aspects of the claims that required some clarification. Specifically:
(a)the meaning of “differentiated security inspections”; and
(b)the identity of the “security inspection unit”
“differentiated security inspections”

At various points the specification says:
“… the security inspection unit obtains pre-stored risk information according to the information of the person to be inspected, performs differentiated security inspections on the person to be inspected and/or the baggage according to the risk information, and sends obtained data to the centralized data processing unit …” ([0006])
“… performing differentiated security inspections on the person to be inspected and/or the baggage according to the risk information …”([0011])
“The smart security inspection system and method according to the present disclosure are capable of obtaining the risk information related to the person to be inspected according to the information of the person to be inspected, checking the person to be inspected and the baggage to be inspected using differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods according to different risk information, and thus improving the overall identification accuracy.” ([0016])
These points are repeated in more or less the same words throughout the specification.
Figures 7 and 8 are said to be, respectively:
·a detailed schematic flow diagram of differentiated security inspections on baggage to be inspected according to the present disclosure; and
·a detailed schematic flow diagram of differentiated security inspections on persons to be inspected according to the present disclosure.
Figures 7 and 8 are:
These flowcharts are self-explanatory, and the description does not add anything to their disclosure. As is clear, they are consistent with the discussion about the description above.
In spite of these disclosures, the specification does not explain in any way, what a differentiated security inspection is. It is somehow linked to risk information, but what changes as the risk information changes is not disclosed. In their submission, the applicant stated that the inspection machine could, for example, generate radiations with different energies, or the processing of the image data could be changed in the data processing unit. The applicant stated that differentiated inspection could allocate more resources to the high-risk targets to improve the overall inspection accuracy. However, none of this is in the specification. All that is said is that differentiated security inspection is done “according to the risk information”. What actually changes is never discussed. There is no acknowledgement that the machines, processing or inspection techniques change given the risk information obtained. The reference to “differentiated automatic identification algorithms” does not assist. These are not explained either.
While it might have been said that the inspection is “differentiated” in that a bag or person could be subjected to an unpacking or manual check, respectively, this does not seem to be supported by the specification. The specification has the differentiated security inspections being done before these additional checks.
I am forced to conclude that a “differentiated security inspection” is simply a security inspection of some sort. However, there is nothing in the process itself that results in any change to the machines, processing or inspection techniques employed by the system from person to person or from bag to bag.
“security inspection unit”
It is necessary to clarify this term because of the inconsistent use of the term in the specification as a whole.
The first thing to note is that figure 1 shows a security inspection unit 40. This unit sits in the security inspection area 4. It is shown as completely separate to the other items that are included in the security inspection area. Notwithstanding that, the description says of the security inspection unit:
“[it is] in communication connection with the server … obtains pre-stored risk information according to the information of the person to be inspected, performs differentiated security inspections on the person to be inspected and/or the baggage according to the risk information, and sends obtained data to the centralized data processing unit.” ([0006]) (my emphasis)
“before the baggage to be inspected enters the security inspection unit, the image acquisition unit acquires an image of the baggage to be inspected” ([0009])(my emphasis)
Moreover, the claims as proposed to be amended define in relation to the security inspection unit:
“…a security inspection unit comprising a security inspection imaging machine and a human-body check machine in a security inspection area … the security inspection unit … [is] in communication connection with the server … security inspection unit obtains pre-stored risk information according to the information of the person to be inspected, performs differentiated security inspections on the person to be inspected and the baggage by using differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods according to the risk information, and sends obtained data to the centralized data processing unit … the baggage sorting device is arranged downstream of the security inspection unit …”(claim 1)
“… before the baggage to be inspected enters the security inspection unit, the image acquisition unit acquires an image of the baggage to be inspected and identifies the baggage identifier, and binds the acquired image of baggage to the baggage identifier.”(claim 4)
“… identifying, with a security inspection unit, the baggage identifier, … automatically delivering, with a suspected baggage delivery device, the inspected baggage to a suspected baggage conveying device for further inspection if the inspected baggage is conveyed to a baggage sorting device downstream of the security inspection unit and there is still no determination whether the inspected baggage contains any suspected objects.”(claim 6)
Accordingly, the security inspection unit is variously:
·A unit located in the security inspection area separate to any other item in the area;
·A unit connected to a server which obtains pre-stored risk information;
·A unit which includes a security inspection imaging machine and a human-body check machine;
·A unit which performs differentiated security inspections on a person and/or their baggage;
·A unit located upstream of a baggage sorting device;
·A unit which baggage to be inspected enters, being located downstream of a baggage image acquisition unit
·A unit which identifies the baggage identifier
While it is possible for some of these aspects to co-exist, it is also clear that some cannot. For example, the security inspection unit cannot be a unit separate to any other item in the security inspection area while, at the same time, including security inspection imaging machine and a human-body check machine (which are separate items in the area), and being upstream of a baggage sorting device (when it apparently includes both an inspection machine a human-body checker).
Alternatively, looking at figure 1, and the rectangles surrounding various areas, it might be said, given the way the certain rectangles are surrounded by others, that the security inspection area 4, includes the security inspection unit 40, which contains a body check area 7 and a baggage check area 6. The body check area includes a human-body machine-check unit 71 and a manual-check post, and the baggage check area includes a security inspection imaging unit 61, a baggage distribution unit 62 and a re-check unit 63. This seems to be the more preferable interpretation as not doing so would lead to absurd results. As such, I will proceed in this manner.
However, if that is the case, it is a nonsense to state (as the claims do) that the baggage distribution unit is downstream of the security inspection unit. The baggage distribution unit is within the security inspection unit. It seems clear that, at least in this last case, “security inspection unit” has been used instead of other labels. It seems tolerably clear that the baggage sorting device is arranged downstream of the security inspection imaging unit. As such, I will proceed as if the claims define this particular arrangement.
Outline of the examiner’s objections
In his last report, the examiner has objected that the claimed invention was not a manner of manufacture. After addressing the submission of the applicant to the previous report, the examiner concludes:
“Any advantage or benefit gained from implementing the combination of steps of the claimed invention is considered to be limited to improvements in the business process, such as improvements in the efficiency of security inspections, as opposed to any improvement in the underlying technology.
It is therefore maintained that the claimed invention does not overcomes any particular technical limitation in computer technology, nor produces any technical ingenuity in the manner in which any computer components or tangible elements are brought together as a combination. There is no technical solution to a technical problem, as neither the claims nor the specification provide any details relating to technical issues that the claimed invention seeks to overcome; nor do they provide any details that relate to inventor ingenuity with respect to "how" computer technology is used to perform the various tasks, aside from the implementation of generic data processing and data communication arrangements to automate a process. Instead, the problem solved and the nature of the solution is entirely in administration and business innovation.”
The examiner has also objected that the specification did not disclose the invention defined by the in a clear enough and complete enough manner to enable a person skilled in the art to perform the invention across the full width of the claims without undue burden, or the need for further invention.
Manner of Manufacture
Statutory framework
Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provides that an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim, is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies.
Legal principles
The classic definition of “manner of manufacture” is set out in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67, 102 CLR 252 (“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?’” ([14], 269)
The High 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.” ([22], 275)
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.” ([25], 277)
However, the High Court was not laying down a precise formulation that can be applied unthinkingly. In D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc [2015] HCA 35, 258 CLR 334 (“Myriad”) it was said at [23]:
“This Court in NRDC did not prescribe a well-defined pathway for the development of the concept of ‘manner of manufacture’ in its application to unimagined technologies with unimagined characteristics and implications. Rather, it authorised a case-by-case methodology.”
That case-by-case approach must have regard to the substance of the claimed invention, not simply the form of the claim (see Myriad at [6] and [88]). The point is made most succinctly by Gageler and Nettle JJ at [144] of Myriad:
“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.”
Moreover, in looking at this, it is necessary to keep in mind the state of the art. In this regard Myriad stated:
“This appeal, however, collapses the anterior and subsequent questions – ‘Is there an invention?’ and ‘Is there a patentable invention?’ – into one inquiry. That inquiry requires a definition of the allegedly patentable invention. That definition depends upon the construction of the impugned claims read in the light of the specification as a whole and the relevant prior art. The prior art in this case was reflected in expert evidence at trial and set out in the scientific primer agreed between the parties and summarised later in these reasons.” ([12])
and
“Based upon the expert evidence at trial, the primer may be taken as embodying the scientific background, presumably comprising common general knowledge, or at least relevant prior art, against which the complete specification, including the claims, is to be read.” ([39] my emphasis)
This point was emphasised in Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86 (“Rokt”) ([68] and [73]):
“The present appeal also calls attention to the single enquiry identified in this passage, namely whether, upon construction, claim 1 as read in the light of the specification as a whole in the light of the relevant prior art, which in the present case is the common general knowledge, is a manner of manufacture.”
…
The role of expert evidence in construing the patent specification and the claims is limited. It is to place the Court in the position of the person acquainted with the surrounding circumstances as to the state of the art and manufacture as at the priority date: Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; (2001) 207 CLR 1 at [24]; Myriad Genetics at [12]”,
and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCA 778 ([27] and [85]) (bolding in original):
“… as the Full Court explains in Commissioner of Patents v Rokt [2020] FCAFC 86 at [71] – [73] and [85], the role of expert evidence in construing the specification and also in considering the question of manner of manufacture is limited. In relation to the former, it is to place the Court in the position of the person acquainted with the surrounding circumstances as to the state of the art and manufacture as at the priority date: Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1 at [24]; D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics [2015] HCA 35; 258 CLR 334 at [12].
…
In Myriad Genetics the plurality said at [12] (citations omitted, emphasis added):
The term ‘patentable invention’ is defined in the Dictionary in Sched 1 to the Act as ‘an invention of the kind mentioned in section 18.’ The term ‘invention’ is defined as:
“any manner of new manufacture the subject of letters patent and grant of privilege within section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies, and includes an alleged invention.”
It is not clear, and was not debated in this appeal, how the expression ‘manner of manufacture’ differs from the expression ‘manner of new manufacture’. The definition of "invention" has been used in Commonwealth patent statutes since federation. It allows for exclusion from the class of ‘invention’, and therefore from the class of ‘patentable invention’, anything which is not, on the face of the specification, a proper subject of letters patent according to traditional principles. That anterior exclusion may be based upon an admission, on the face of the specification, which makes clear that the invention claimed is not novel or does not involve an inventive step. This appeal, however, collapses the anterior and subsequent questions – ‘Is there an invention?’ and ‘Is there a patentable invention?’ – into one inquiry. That inquiry requires a definition of the allegedly patentable invention. That definition depends upon the construction of the impugned claims read in the light of the specification as a whole and the relevant prior art...
The commencement of any analysis of manner of manufacture requires determining whether the claims in suit, as read in the light of the specification as a whole and the relevant art, which in the present case is the common general knowledge, are for a manner of manufacture.”
In Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd ([2015] FCAFC 177, 115 IPR 461) (“RPL”) the Full Court of the Federal Court said, in relation to the substance of the invention in the context of a computer implemented invention (at [96]–[98]):
“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.”
The Full Court then went on to discuss a range of considerations that are helpful in the technology of the RPL case. The Full Court in Encompass Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161 (“Encompass”) did not find it necessary to revisit the correctness of RPL (see [7]). These recent Full Court cases have focused upon the computer's role to ascertain whether the claimed invention involved “something more” than an abstract idea or scheme.
In Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited [2016] APO 49 the delegate summarised the considerations arising from RPL as:
“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.”

In Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCA 778 (“Aristocrat”), the Court considered the cases and stated at [91]:
“The reasoning in the cases mentioned in [88] above involves an initial question of whether the claimed invention is for a mere scheme or business method of the type that is not the proper subject matter of a grant of letters patent. Once that question is answered in the affirmative, the subsequent inquiry becomes whether the computer-implemented method is one where invention lay in the computerisation of the method, or whether the language of the claim involves (to use the language employed in Rokt at [84]) “merely plugging an unpatentable scheme into a computer”. That second inquiry requires consideration of whether the invention claimed involved the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer was integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which the invention was performed. That enquiry has spawned investigations in the cases to identify whether the contribution of the claimed invention is “technical in nature” or whether it solves a “technical” problem, or whether it merely requires “generic” computer implementation: see, for instance, RPL Central at [99].”
The Court then found at [95] that:
“… I consider that in the present case the answer to the first question is different. I do not consider that, properly understood, the invention described and claimed, when understood as a matter of substance, is to a mere scheme or plan. It is to a mechanism of a particular construction, the operation of which involves a combination of physical parts and software to produce a particular outcome in the form of an [Electronic Gaming Machine] EGM that functions in a particular way. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to consider the second enquiry.”
Having noted the features in the claims relating to EGMs, and the expert evidence that revealed the standards that impose regulatory requirements on EGMs, the Court stated at [98]:
“The result is that to the person skilled in the art, the invention may be characterised as a machine of a particular construction which implements a gaming function. It yields a practical and useful result. Simply put, the machine that is the subject of the claims is built to allow people to play games on it. That is its only purpose. In this regard, the physical and virtual features of the display, reels, credit input mechanism, gameplay mechanism and game controller combine to produce the invention. It is a device of a specific character.” (my underlining)
What is the subject matter of the claims?
The invention defined by claim 1 as proposed to be amended is a system having several areas in which certain actions in relation to the security inspection of people and baggage occurs. The information gathered in each area is collected and linked together. As is clear from figure 1 above, the present invention includes computers and other hardware (e.g. baggage sorting devices, human body check machines). To that extent some of the language used in RPL and Encompass, dealing with computer-implemented inventions, is not directly applicable. However, the principles of looking to the substance of the invention and considering the contribution to the invention are, I believe, applicable.
What is the contribution to the claimed invention?
The applicant submitted that:
“[i]n order to determine the substance, examiners must identify the central underlying invention embodied in the claim, rather than merely consider the literal form of the claim. This is the contribution the claimed invention makes to the art and is determined based on a reading of the specification as a whole and examiners’ understanding of the common general knowledge and prior art.” (at [37] of their written submissions)
I cannot see anything controversial about this statement. It accords with the principles that have been developed in the case law.
The applicant then submitted (at [40] of their written submissions) that there were two aspects of the claimed invention that showed that the claimed invention provided a technical contribution such that the invention was a manner of manufacture. Specifically:
“40.1.The automated use of the technical components listed in the first clause of claim 1 to automatically link a security risk associated with a human to their baggage via an automatically applied baggage identifier; and
40.2.The provision of an automatically controlled back-up system which controls a baggage delivery device to divert baggage to which a security determination has not been made.
Taking these points, the applicant went on to state that:
“The substance of the claims relates to the automation of a smart security inspection system, and in particular, the claimed arrangement obtaining and linking risk information to a person and their baggage, checking the person and their baggage using differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods according to different risk information. In particular, differentiated security inspections are automatic checks based on automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods, rather than manual security checks by operators.” (at [44] of their written submissions)
The problem with this position is that the specification does not support it. True it is that the specification says that information is gathered about the person, a baggage identifier is “distributed”, and this information is bonded to other information gathered, which includes the result of the baggage and/or person inspection. It is also the case that the specification states that pre-stored risk information is retrieved and that information, along with the rest is sent to the centralised data processing unit which “evaluates” the data to generate a “security inspection result” which it binds with the other security inspection data and binds that to the information about the person. It is also correct to say that the specification states that, when no determination has been made on a piece of baggage, the baggage is sent to the baggage unpacking post for further inspection.
However, in the present case, and with the greatest respect to the applicant, these are mere words.
I have already discussed above that a “differentiated security inspection” is simply a standard security inspection. The inclusion of “differentiated” is essentially meaningless. As such, it does not appear appropriate to rely upon this as an indicator of some sort of technical contribution. It does not provide that.
With regard to the linking of information, while sounding technical in the sense that technical components are used, whatever the contribution of the invention is, it does not involve any improvement to any of the computers or other hardware used by the system. This is clear from the language used in the specification. The level of technical detail for these elements is almost non-existent. The parts of the description that I have quoted above give a perfect example of the level of details furnished with respect to these parts of the system. The specification provides nothing.
As to the baggage sorting feature, again, the level of discussion in the specification makes it impossible to conclude there is a technical contribution. In this regard I note that the specification states (some of which I have quoted above):
“The security inspection imaging unit evaluates and sorts the inspected baggage according to the security image from the radiation imaging. For example, the security inspection operator evaluates according to his/her own judgment. If it is suspected that the baggage to be inspected contains suspected objects, the security inspection operator marks (e.g., using a hand-held device) the security inspection tray bound to the baggage to be inspected, such that the baggage will be checked carefully. If there is no suspected object, the baggage to be inspected will be conveyed to a designated area from which the inspected person can take his/her baggage away. At the security inspection imaging unit 61, the inspected luggage may be manually sorted or may be automatically sorted by a baggage sorting device 62. Specifically, the baggage sorting device 62 may be provided at the exit of a security inspection channel of the X-ray security inspection device. When the X-ray security inspection device detects a piece of suspected baggage, a suspected baggage delivery device will be actuated to deliver the suspected baggage to a suspected baggage conveying device for further inspection. When the X-ray security inspection device detects a piece of normal baggage, the suspected baggage delivery device will not be actuated and the normal baggage will be delivered to a normal baggage conveying device which will convey the normal baggage to a designated area from which the inspected person will take his/her baggage away. If the inspected baggage is conveyed to the baggage sorting device 62 and there is still no determination whether the inspected baggage contains any suspected objects, the suspected baggage delivery device is actuated automatically to deliver the baggage to the suspected baggage conveying device for further inspection.” ([0034] my emphasis)
There is no detail of how it is done by a machine. Again, they are just words. A person evaluates the image and decides whether a bag is suspect. Then, the baggage sorting can also be done manually. While the specification says that sorting can also be done automatically, how that word provides a technical contribution is not clear to me.
Indeed, at the level of disclosure, the decision as to whether to deliver the baggage to the normal baggage conveying device or the suspected baggage conveying device is administrative in nature.
In my opinion, the level of disclosure of the specification makes it clear that (analogous to Encompass at [99]) the substance of the invention is the abstract idea of a business system and, at a very high level, how it might work. It is not, as the applicant submitted “automatic checks based on automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods, rather than manual security checks by operators”. Clearly manual security checks are performed and there is no detail as to any algorithm, or how it is deployed (beyond the simple instruction to use one). There is no meaningful (or, indeed, any) differentiation of security check done based on information gathered. Indeed, even in regard to the risk information related to the person, which is a key piece of information for the performance of the invention, the specification reveals nothing about it. What the invention boils down to is a business scheme to guide people through various areas of an inspection site and to the gathering of information. The arrangement of areas (i.e. “downstream” “upstream”) relates to the flow of people and their bags and, as such, is part of the scheme. The gathering of information is just that – gathering information. This conclusion is also consistent with the fact that the disadvantages of the prior art of high labour costs, low efficiency and disordered management of passengers and their baggage are all business problems.
I would also note for completeness, that, contrary to the applicant’s submissions, the system (and method) of the claims can in no way be said to be a machine of particular construction having a single purpose (as per the findings of Aristocrat). As the most obvious indication, the present invention has areas of floor space where people can gather and certain actions (by people) are to be carried out, with people moving between the different areas. It is not analogous to the self-contained unit of Aristocrat which is operated by a user. If anything, the system of the present invention is more akin to the system of Rokt which had different pieces of equipment linked by lines of communication. The present invention has disparate “pieces” (i.e., the areas) linked by “lines of customers”.
Is there an improvement to a device?
Notwithstanding the above, it is possible for an invention which may be, in essence, a scheme to nevertheless satisfy the requires of manner of manufacture if it results in what may be termed a “real-world improvement”. See, for example, Grant v Commissioner of Patents [2006] FCAFC 120, Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. [2018] APO 24 and Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. [2019] APO 26.
As noted above, the specification states the prior arrangements have the disadvantages of high labour costs, low efficiency and disordered management of passengers and their baggage. Of these disadvantages, there appears to be none that are not a business problem. Prima facie, business problems require business innovations. It has been definitively established that business innovations are not patentable. However, it has also been established that if, in implementing the business innovation, technical innovation is necessary, then that invention could be a manner of manufacture.
It is at this point that the lack of detail of the specification again defeats the applicant’s stance. No technical innovation can be gleaned from the specification. The level of detail in the specification is clearly a factor in deciding what innovation is being carried out. It was noted that, for the patent dealt with in Encompass:
“the specification leaves it to the user to implement the method in the way he or she might choose to do so, assisted by broadly-expressed and non-limiting suggestions or possibilities.”
This is the case with the present application.
Having noted that, the Court said at [101]:
“As the oral argument developed during the appeal, the appellants submitted that the claimed method is, itself, a high-level description of a computer program. We do not accept this characterisation. If approached from this point of view, the method is really an idea for a computer program, it being left (as we have said) to the user to carry out that idea in an electronic processing device. 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.”
Analogously, the present application is not directed to a technical innovation which was required to implement a business innovation. While it is accepted that the specification includes technical elements, the presence of those technical elements does not change the substance of the invention from being a business innovation – i.e., a high-level idea for processing people and baggage according to risk, or a scheme to move people around and gather data.
It follows that the claims are not directed to a manner of manufacture.
SECTION 40
Applicable law
The requirement for clear enough and complete enough disclosure was introduced into the Act as part of the Raising the Bar Act. Specifically, s40(2)(a) reads as follows:
“(2) A complete specification must:
(a)Disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the relevant art.
In Cytec Industries Inc. v Nalco Company [2021] FCA 970, Burley J noted (in [142] et seq):
“142 In [Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v Wyeth LLC (No 3) [2020] FCA 1477] in section 16, particularly at [511] – [514] and [523] – [526], I addressed the introduction into the Patents Act of the current form of s 40(2)(a). I said the following in relation to the manner in which this requirement has been applied in the United Kingdom under the name “classical sufficiency”:
[525] In Novartis AG v Johns & Johnson Medical Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1039; [2011] E.C.C. 10, Jacob LJ said at [74]:
The heart of the test is: “Can the skilled person readily perform the invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden and without needing inventive skill?”
[526] In Terrell on the Law of Patents (19th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2020), at page 404 the learned editors (Sir Colin Birss et al) propose as a convenient summary of the elements of this aspect of classical insufficiency the following passage provided by Kitchin J (as his Lordship then was) in Eli Lily v Human Genome Sciences [2008] 7 WLUK 978; RPC 29 at [239]:
The specification must disclose the invention clearly and completely enough for it to be performed by a person skilled in the art. The key elements of this requirement which bear on the present case are these:
(i)the first step is to identify the invention and that is to be done by reading and construing the claims;
(ii)in the case of a product claim that means making or otherwise obtaining the product;
(iii)in the case of a process claim, it means working the process;
(iv)sufficiency of the disclosure must be assessed on the basis of the specification as a whole including the description and the claims;
(v)the disclosure is aimed at the skilled person who may use his common general knowledge to supplement the information contained in the specification;
(vi)the specification must be sufficient to allow the invention to be performed over the whole scope of the claim;
(vii)the specification must be sufficient to allow the invention to be so performed without undue burden.
143 In CSR Building Products Ltd v United States Gypsum Company [2015] APO 72, Dr S D Barker considered at [95] that it involved the following three steps:
(1)   Construe the claims to determine the scope of the invention as claimed;
(2)   Construe the description to determine what it discloses to the person skilled in the art; and
(3)   Decide whether the specification provides an enabling disclosure of all the things that fall within the scope of the claims.
144 In the present case, the delegate (at [54]) added to these the further questions to be considered, citing Evolva SA [2017] APO 57 at [45]:
(1)   Is it plausible that the invention can be worked across the full scope of the invention?
(2)   Can the invention be performed across the full scope of the claims without undue experimentation?
145 It will be observed that the steps proposed in Terrell on the Law of Patents (19th ed, Sweet & Maxwell, London, 2020) (set out above at [142]) do not differ materially from those set out in the decisions of the Commissioner. The emphasis in Evolva that the question involves consideration of whether the invention can be performed across the full scope of the claims without undue experimentation represents a significant shift from the previous law, as set out by the High Court in Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; 207 CLR 1 at [25], and represents the established position in the United Kingdom.
146 The language of s 40(2)(a) now indicates that this is the correct approach in Australia …”
Examiner’s Objection under s 40(2)(a)
In the third examination report the examiner raised an objection under section 40(2)(a) of the Act, claiming:
“The complete specification does not disclose sufficient detail towards how the security inspection unit…performs differentiated security inspections on the person to be inspected and the baggage by using differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods according to the risk information.
This is because the claimed feature encompasses several ways to perform security inspections using differentiated automatic identification algorithms, including through the use of manual inspection methods (e.g. manual inspections in accordance with instructions provided by a computer implementing the algorithms) and/or through the implementation of one or more automation techniques. The specification does not provide any detail relating to how the differentiated automatic identification algorithms are implemented by the security inspection unit that would enable a person skilled in the art to perform the invention across the full scope of the claims.”
Applicant’s Submissions

The Applicant submits that there is sufficient disclosure to perform the invention over the full width of the claims. In particular, Figure 6 describes the detailed processing steps performed by the central processing unit and Figure 7 provides further detail on the specific decision steps taken by the central processing unit
The Applicant claims paragraphs [0033] to [0040] disclose how the differentiated algorithms works, including the technical components and what they are controlled to do. Specific attention is given to paragraph [0036] as the Applicant claims it provides examples of what the risk data might include:
“(e.g., a higher risk of carrying explosives, a higher risk of carrying cold arms, a higher risk of carrying chemicals, ect.). The skilled person is therefore given clear direction on possible criteria to be used in making the differentiated security inspection.”
The submissions further claim:
“Further, it is of course not usual, or necessary to include implementing software code in patent application. It is of course expected that the skilled person would be sufficiently familiar with the apparatus of prior art security systems (for example as per D1 to D4) to write controlling code accordingly.”
The passage continues to explain that the necessary process steps are described in [0037]. As an example, how to bind the baggage identifier to the baggage and how to detect the identifier is disclosed in paragraphs [0034] and [0036].
The submissions conclude:
“The Applicant is entitled to describe the invention broadly, reliant on the knowledge of the skilled person for routine implementation, which, as quite typical of such patent applications, requires the writing or implementing software.”
Construction
In addition to the discussion above with respect to “differentiated security inspections” and “security inspection unit”, there are some further terms to discuss here. These are:
Risk information
“Risk information”, within the context of the specification, is stored data associated with a person. That is all the information that the specification provides. As noted above, its source is not discussed, and neither is the content. The specification, in discussing the use of risk information various places, uses phrasing along these lines:
“… obtain(s)(ing) pre-stored risk information according to the information of the person to be inspected, perform(s)(ing) differentiated security inspections on the person to be inspected and/or the baggage according to the risk information”
Whether it is “(s)” or “(ing)” depends on whether what is being spoken about at the time is a system or a method. While this phrasing is repeated at several places, it provides nothing more than this as to the content of the information.
The specification at [0016] does have a slightly different variation which is:
“The smart security inspection system and method according to the present disclosure are capable of obtaining the risk information related to the person to be inspected according to the information of the person to be inspected, checking the person to be inspected and the baggage to be inspected using differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods according to different risk information, and thus improving the overall identification accuracy.” (my emphasis)
As such, there is something about the existence of different risk information, but how it differs is not discussed at all.
While the specification at [0033] (and elsewhere) says:
“When performing differentiated security inspections on the baggage to be inspected, the security inspection imaging unit 61 carries out differentiated smart identification on the baggage to be inspected by using differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods according to the risk information of the person to be inspected (e.g., a higher risk of carrying explosives, a higher risk of carrying cold arms, a higher risk of carrying chemicals, etc.)”,
I cannot be certain that the risk of carrying explosives, cold arms or chemicals is part of the risk information or is something that the algorithm suggests.
I am at a loss as to what is being retrieved and, therefore, what “risk information” is. All that can be said is that, somewhere, there is information that is linked to the identity of a person, that information is labelled as “risk information” and, somehow, that information is used within the system.
Evaluates
The term “evaluates”, in the context of the specification, is used to indicate judgement of some sort. However, as is clear from the passages quoted above, the only judgement explicitly exemplified (simply by stating it) is personal judgement of a security inspection operator. When the specification states that “the centralized data processing unit evaluates the person to be inspected”, or the “security inspection imaging unit evaluates and sorts the inspected baggage”, it is not at all clear whether this is simply the evaluation of an operator, or whether there is some sort of automated evaluation by a machine. No example is given with respect to any machine. Therefore, to the extent that the specification includes within its scope the possibility of a machine (computer or otherwise) undertaking an evaluation, I do not know what is done. Clearly some sort of evaluation is made in the sense of data being processed, but what data, and from where, is not explained. While it may be said that it could be referring to known algorithms of detecting something, such as hidden contraband, given that the invention is seeking to undertake different inspections based upon individual evaluations it does not seem likely that known algorithms, which are not used in such an “individualised” inspection system, would have the requisite capability.
Again, I am at a loss. All that I can say is that a judgement is made, but what is presented for the relevant person or machine to make that judgement is left out of the specification.
Differentiated automatic identification algorithms
“Differentiated automatic identification algorithm” is a term not easily resolved from the specification. It suffers from the same issues that plague the term “differentiated security inspection”. Whatever these algorithms are, how they are different to other algorithms, between the algorithms that might exist within the system (this is impossible to tell), is never discussed. All that is said is that differentiated security inspection is done by using differentiated automatic identification algorithms given the risk information obtained. There is no acknowledgement as to what changes given the risk information obtained.
If I were to speculate, I would consider a “differentiated automatic identification algorithm” to comprise an automated method of detecting hidden contraband which differs in some way between passengers depending on the risk information associated with the passenger (noting the issues above I have with “risk information”).
Consideration
The Examiner’s objection related to how the security inspection unit is performing either the differentiated automatic identification algorithm or inspection methods based on the pre-stored risk information. The Applicant asserted that “it is not necessary to disclose detail as to the nature of such risk information” and further provided examples of what the data might comprise as “direction on possible criteria to be used in making differentiated security inspection”.

I accept that it is not necessary that the complete specification disclose every minor detail, where these features can be derived from the common general knowledge in the art. I also agree that various inspection methods would be known, and it would be within the common general knowledge of the person skilled in the art to formulate software to execute a system. However, it is clear that the applicant considers their inspection methods to not be in the common general knowledge.
Consequently, the question then becomes whether there would be undue burden on person skilled in the art when faced with the problem of how or when to perform various known inspection methods in light of obtained security data.

As should be clear from my discussions throughout this decision, the answer to this question is that the burden imposed by the specification is too high. I do not consider there to be sufficient information about the relevant instructions or functionality such as to allow a person skilled in the art to develop the necessary software. The present application is silent about how undefined risk information (whatever that may be) could be used to perform automatic security inspections on the baggage or people. In other words, the required technical details about risk-controlled differentiated automatic identification algorithms or inspection methods cannot be found in the present application.
In addition, the specification does not disclose what the instruction to the security inspection unit would comprise, nor does it disclose how instructions might be derived from relevant parameters. The specification does not disclose the relationship between the data obtained and different inspection methods in enough detail to render it clear and readily apparent how to put the invention into practice. I consider the evaluation of security data and the formulation of appropriate inspection methods according to the data to place undue burden of experimentation on the person skilled in the art.

Therefore, the specification does not disclose the claimed invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough. The specification does not comply with s40(2)(a) of the Act.
CONCLUSION
The invention is not a manner of manufacture. In addition, the invention is not disclosed in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough. I see no prospect for amendments which would overcome the described deficiencies. Accordingly, subject to appeal, I refuse the application.
Greg Powell
Deputy Commissioner of Patents