![]() So while there remains some uncertainty around what requirements a claim to a computer-implemented invention must satisfy in order to be held patentable under Australian law, on the upside, the split decision leaves it open for the High Court to consider this question again. In the meantime the approach of the Australian Patent Office remains substantially unchanged and whilst there are some rejections, many patents for computer-implemented invention are being granted. This characterisation, in their opinion, progressed the invention beyond being merely a game incorporated into a generic EGM.Ī more detailed discussion of this decision may be found here. Specifically they characterised the invention as “ an EGM incorporating an interdependent player interface and a game controller which includes feature games and configurable symbols”.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |