Patent Application Number: 2008225074
This discussion forum is available to allow the community of reviewers to collaborate and discuss this patent application.
Discussion that is posted on this page will not be forwarded to IP Australia. If you wish to make comment on a prior art reference and wish that comment to be considered by the patent examiner, please do so by clicking on the relevant prior art reference.
Here are some tips to facilitate discussion.
- Flagging a post as an 'action item' signals that further research is required.
- Flagging SPAM and ABUSE helps to manage discussion
- Placing double brackets around a reference to a claim or prior art will create a hyperlink to the original, for example: [[claim 1]] and [[prior art 2]].
Facilitator's Comment 
Action Item Show without Noise
United States
0006 - Downloadable software modules and complete programs have been used for over 30 years and became popular as soon as the microprocessor permitted low cost “distributed computing” to become a “mainstream” activity in the ICT industry. There are no known “technology advances” that have made its use for gaming systems possible beyond those that have become accepted and normal practice for IT professionals. The only change may have been in the structure of actual gaming machines with the incorporation of micrprocessors and thus to the use of this well proven technology.
0008 - The technical solutions have been available for over 20 years through the use of cryptographic systems for such facilities as:
- Digital watermarks,
- Digital signatures,
- Content encryption, etc.
The problem has been purely that content owners have not wanted to change their obsolete business models to allow for the change in technology afforded by such entities as the introduction of the global Internet.
0010 - Cryptographic systems are NOT difficult to implement and nowadays may involve nothing more than the use of the low-cost “Trusted Platform Module (TPM)” chip set.
This, moreover, also eliminates any performance concerns.
0064 - “..embodied in other specific forms..” This statement demonstrates that the application provides no novelty or claims as to specificity of the invention. Rather, it clearly demonstrates that the whole document is just a description of a distributed computer system, using well established technologies and sub-systems, applied to the gaming industry sector. The concept of a patent, as per the definition given by IP Australia is simple and as follows:
A patent is a right granted for any device, substance, method or process which is new, inventive and useful. (URL http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/patents/what_index.shtml cited at 6 May 2010).
The claim must demonstrate something “new”. The document does not do this in that all the techniques outlined have been known, described and published for over 20 years. Inventiveness must indicate originality and the techniques described do not introduce any specific variation to the well established structures described. The claimed invention is useful, as is any integrated computer system.
With that in mind, the system of royalty calculation is also not all that challenging. Many companies do this already; with their website calculating how much is owed in relation to each download. (see, for example - http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7072867.html) The question here is whether putting these two areas together into the one concept is enough to make it patentable?
So, what you're saying is that the technology that relates to storing software updates on a server and transmitting them to machines on a network is not novel as it has been done in other industries, but that the limitation of this technology to the field of gaming machines may not have been been done before? Arguably then, you might say that applying a known apparatus or method to a different field of technology is novel, but not inventive?
As far as combining prior art relating to the server updates and the royalty calculation is concerned, I think there is a good argument in favour of saying this is not an inventive combination as far as a person skilled in the art of gaming machines is concerned.
That is exactly what I am referring to - a person skilled in the relevant art, that being the practice of storing content on an accessible server would not see this as particularly inventive it is fair to say.
Even if one were to drill down further into what is the 'relevant art', a person dealing with this segment of gaming machines on a regular basis would be aware of such concepts one would expect.
The application does not provide for the actual method of secure transfer; it is assumed that access to the server involves a number of prerequisites, similar to an online store. The appropriate protocols are then used.
Once a user downloads content from the server, a royalty calculator is to calculate the fee based on either a time, event, percentage or net profit-based calculation, or daily rate. These royalties are then to be paid to the manufacturer. There are no specifics provided in the application as to how the calculator is to be configured – rather it just gives a few possibilities.
Yes I do agree with your comment on the lack of concrete implementation details, but the claims seems to focus more on the concept itself instead of the implementation. I guess there could be a certain degree of novelty in the system as a whole and in the ways of calculating royalties proposed.