Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited - [2018] APO 89

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited [2018] APO 89

Patent Application: 2017203678

Title:Computer Gaming Device and Method for Computer Gaming

Patent Applicant:                   Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited
Delegate:  M. G. Kraefft
Decision Date:  6 December 2018
Hearing Date:  Written submissions filed on 12 October 2018

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 45 – examiner’s objection – whether invention is a manner of manufacture – online poker card gaming system – virtual playing tables – movement of folding player to another virtual table – prevention of further play by player at first table – substance of claimed invention relates to enhancement of how game is managed and played – no manner of manufacture – application refused

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Pizzeys

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2017203678

Title:Computer Gaming Device and Method for Computer Gaming

Patent Applicant: Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited
Date of Decision: 6 December 2018
DECISION
The claimed invention is not for a manner of manufacture. Moreover there is nothing in the body of the specification that could overcome this finding.
The application is refused.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND

Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited (“the applicant”) filed patent application 2017203678 on 31 May 2017. The application is a divisional application based on application 2015203838. That application is also a divisional application based on application 2013206303 which in turn is a divisional application based on application 2006333559. The latter application is based on a US application. The earliest claimed priority date is 20 December 2005.
A first examination report on the present application was issued on 6 March 2018. The report contained an objection that the claims do not define a manner of manufacture. In view of the examination of the lineage of earlier applications in this case, the report also included the following passage:-
“Noting the objections in the attached report, and given that this is now essentially the fourth issuance of the same report, if a response overcoming the objections is not filed within three (3) months of the date of this report the Commissioner will consider whether to direct amendment of the application under section 107 or proceed to refuse the application under section 49(2) of the Act. If intending to proceed under either of these provisions the Commissioner will provide you with an opportunity to request to be heard on the matter.”
The applicant requested to be heard of its own volition.
SPECIFICATION
The specification describes the invention as relating in general to gaming and, more particularly, to a computer gaming device and method for computer gaming. As background, the specification discusses the popularity of online poker games over the Internet. The specification identifies at least two problems with such games.
The first is that it is possible for two or more people to play together in collusion, that is, a form of cheating. To do this, the players may use signals designed to keep other players from discovering their scheme. Although Internet and other organisations providing electronic play do their…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited

Details

AGLC: Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited [2018] APO 89
Case: [2018] APO 89
Decision Date: 6 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in this case involved a patent application filed by Rational Intellectual Holdings Limited, seeking protection for a computer gaming device and method for computer gaming. The application was objected to by the Australian Patent Office on the basis that it did not define a manner of manufacture as required by the Patents Act 1990. The applicant argued that the invention was more than a mere abstract idea and involved a technical contribution that improved the efficiency of the computing system.

The court examined the substance of the claimed invention to determine whether it met the requirements of a manner of manufacture. The invention related to an online poker gaming system that allowed players to fold out of turn and be automatically moved to another virtual table. While this may have enhanced the way the game was managed and played, the court found that it did not involve any improvement in computing functionality beyond mere generic computer implementation. The invention was seen as an enhancement of how the game was managed and played in an online environment, rather than a technical contribution to the art.

As a result, the court concluded that the claimed invention was not for a manner of manufacture and refused the patent application. The applicant's request for deferral of the decision pending resolution of a related Federal Court appeal was also denied. The court found that the appeal was not of direct relevance to the present matter and deferring the decision would cause undue delay in the administration of the patent system.

Orders