Want of Novelty
115 Much of the respondents' case concerning novelty depends upon what is described in the evidence as the "Frankovic" invention or specification and certain patents or patent applications held or lodged by Aristocrat Leisure Industries Pty Ltd. They are exhibits MAH 3, 4 and 5 to the affidavit of Dr Horsburgh. Some witnesses treated the Frankovic and various "Aristocrat" systems as being similar; others considered them individually. The most specific description of the Frankovic system appears in the evidence of Mr Christopher Stephen Daly who is a principal analyst in the employ of Golden Casket. At par 13 he described the Frankovic jackpot system as follows:
These systems operate by counting signals determined from turnovers (credits wagered) from each of a number of linked gaming machines that are generated when each gaming machine is played. A portion of this turnover is added to the accumulating jackpot. The accumulated amount of the jackpot is compared to a random number generated (known as the 'mystery' amount) within a pre-determined range. The range is determined at the time the jackpot is started and remains the same until the jackpot has been won. The range actually represents the upper and lower dollar amounts of the possible jackpot value and is known to the players. When the amount of the accumulated jackpot pool is equal to or exceeds the mystery amount, a prize is awarded to the machine that contributed the signal which took the amount of the accumulated jackpot pool onto or past the mystery amount.
116 Mr Moffitt gave a similar description. In this system, each cycle commences with the selection of a winning number or value. Thereafter, amounts are added to the pool until it equals or exceeds that value. The probability of a win increases with the contribution of wagers by all EGMs in the relevant system. It is the wager on the game in which the jackpot may potentially be won which determines whether an EGM will win the jackpot. For reasons previously given, probability of a win in such a system is not dependent upon an amount wagered "during an elapsed period" for the purposes of the patent in suit. The Frankovic system uses no such period. None of the principal claims 1, 17 or 24 was anticipated by the Frankovic system.
117 The Aristocrat Patent, which is exhibit MAH 3 to Mr Horsburgh's affidavit, is also referred to in the evidence as "Hyperlink". Ross Edward Ferrar, the executive officer of the Australasian Gaming Machine Manufacturers Association said of Hyperlink:
In Hyperlink, a jackpot prize draw is conducted every game, on every machine. A machine's probability of winning the jackpot prize draw is weighted according to the turnover of the current game. If a machine wins the jackpot, one of four jackpot pools is awarded and the machine enters a second screen feature. On completion of the second screen feature , the current jackpot pool amount is either transferred to the machine's credit meter or a machine attendant is called to arrange payment.
118 Probability of a win dependent upon the turnover of "the current game", that is the amount wagered on the relevant game, is not within the claims of the patent in suit. I have previously given my reasons for this conclusion. However Dr Horsburgh said at pars 68 and 69 of his affidavit, concerning Hyperlink:
68. … On page 3 from line 1 the specification states, '… the trigger condition is determined by an event having a probability related both to expected turnover between consecutive occurrences of the triggered condition on the respective console and the credits bet on the respective game'. The trigger condition signals the award of a jackpot. Thus, the probability of each gaming machine winning a prize is dependent upon the amount wagered on the machine (being the expected turnover conditioned by the credits bet) during an elapsed period (being the time between consecutive occurrences of the trigger condition). This is re-iterated by the preferred embodiment in which the trigger condition is determined by selecting a random number from a predetermined range of numbers. On page 4 from line 24 the specification states, 'In the preferred embodiment, the predetermined range of numbers is determined as a function of expected turnover between consecutive occurrences of the trigger condition, expected jackpot amounts and jackpot frequencies and will equal the expected average turnover per machine between successive initiations of progressive jackpot games divided by the credit value for that machine.
69. The specification reiterates the dependency on turnover in an elapsed period on page 6 at line 28 by stating, 'This is achieved by using a jackpot trigger which is directly related to the wager bet on a respective game and the turnover, instead of using conventional triggers'. Turnover is the amount bet on the machine in a given period of time.
119 At par 72, Dr Horsburgh opined:
The elapsed period of the Aristocrat application could be of any length and therefore could cover the play of a single game.
120 At par 73 he continued:
The elapsed period in the Aristocrat application is the period between successive draws. On page 10 at line 28 the specification states, 'As the time between jackpot game awards is related to turnover, the number of jackpot games played by a player between feature games and hence their chance of winning is directly related to the size of each bet on each game played. Thus the time between jackpot game awards (the elapsed period) is not fixed but may slide to shorter or longer time. Thus the Aristocrat invention would infringe claim 4 of the Neurizon patent, so claim 4 lacks novelty.
121 Mr Bennett said of both the Frankovic and Aristocrat systems:
In the Frankovic system a number of gaming machines are linked to a central jackpot controller. When the jackpot controller is initialised a random number is chosen between two predetermined amounts. One is an initial value (shall we say $100) being the reset or the start up value. Another amount is chosen, for example $300, which is the maximum value of the jackpot value of the jackpot within the range. Through a random process a number is generated which represents a particular value of the jackpot within the range, in this case between $100 and $300. Call it $218.52. From the time of the reset or the initilisation of the system, turnover that is played on every gaming machine linked to the system is recorded by the controller and causes the progressive jackpot on display to progress by a small percentage of the turnover. The players do not know the random number representing $218.52. It is a mystery value. So when the players, through their turnover in a combined way, make the progressive jackpot reach or exceed the mystery value of $218.52, the jackpot controller recognizes that fact then indicates through the controller which machine has been responsible for triggering that event and the controller then makes an indication to all players so that the player at the winning machine will hopefully still be there and will be able to claim that jackpot as the winning player. Payments are usually made manually. Once the payment is made an attendant will re-set the jackpot controller, or it happens automatically, depending upon the particular system implementation. The reset value goes back to the original $100 start up amount, and the same process continues.
…
In summary, the system operates by counting signals determined from turnover (credits wagered) from each of a number of linked gaming machines that are generated when each gaming machine is played. The count is compared to a random number generated within a predetermined range. When the count exceeds the random number a prize is awarded to the machine that contributed the signal that put the count past the random number. The probability of any given machine being awarded the prize is dependent upon the value of turnover on that machine (and, hence, the amount wagered) in an elapsed period (being the period between prize awards).
122 On the other hand Mr Hopkins offered the following opinion:
20. In the Hyperlink system the decision to award a prize is conducted every game, on every machine, so that the awarding of the prize is synchronized to the playing of a game. There is no 'elapsed period of time' which affects the decision to award a prize. Mr Bennett recognises, in paragraph 38 of his affidavit, that time or an elapsed period of time has no bearing on probability of a win in the Hyperlink system, and I agree with this.
21. In the Hyperlink system, a machine's probability of winning the jackpot prize draw is weighted based on the turnover of the most recent game only. The trigger of a jackpot is a random number set within a range of numbers. When that random number is hit on a particular machine, the machine enters a second screen feature. On completion of the second screen feature, one of four jackpot pools is either transferred to the machine's credit meter or a machine attendant is called to arrange payment.
22. In the Hyperlink system, time does not affect the decision to award the prize. Turnover of the most recent game is all that the award of the prize depends on. Time is not a factor.
23. However the probability of win is scaled to the amount bet on the most recent game. Accordingly, it is a 'fair' system.
123 The best place to start in order to resolve any differences of opinion is the Aristocrat patent, exhibit MAH 3 to Dr Horsburgh's affidavit. In the "Summary of the Invention" on p 3, it is said that in the first aspect of the invention, the probability of a win is "related to credits bet per game on the console", in other words the wager on the game in question. For reasons which I have previously given, that does not equate to the requirement in Claim 1 that probability of a win be dependent upon "some of the amount wagered on that gaming machine during an elapsed period". It is rather the amount of one instantaneous wager. There is no identified elapsed period. It is said that in the second aspect of the Hyperlink invention, probability of a win is related to credits bet per game. Similar passages occur in the description of the third and fourth aspects. However it is then said (p 4 ll 1-4) that:
Preferably, the trigger condition is determined by an event having a probability related both to expected turnover between consecutive occurrences of the trigger condition, on the respective console and the credits bet on the respective game.
124 It is significant that the reference is to "expected turnover". As I understand it, expected turnover regulates the frequency with which jackpots are to be awarded. The trigger condition for such an award is to be determined by selecting a random number from a pre-determined range of numbers to be associated with each bought game and for each credit bet on the respective game, allotting to the game one or more numbers from the pre-determined range. In the event that one of the numbers matches the randomly selected number, the trigger has occurred. It is disclosed that in the preferred embodiment:
The predetermined range of numbers is determined as a function of expected turnover between consecutive occurrences of the trigger condition, expected jackpot amounts and jackpot frequencies and will equal the expected average turnover per machine between successive initiations of progressive jackpot games divided by the credit value for that machine. For example, if the progressive jackpot is to be played for an average of every $5,000 of turnover played and the credit value on the machine is $0.05 then the number range will be 1 - 100,000. … In the preferred embodiment the gaming machine will allocate the lowest numbers in the range to the player such that if the player plays 20 credits he will be allocated numbers 1 - 20 giving him a 1 in 5,000 chance of triggering a jackpot feature game.
125 Thus it can be seen that the use of expected turnover is to regulate the frequency with which jackpots are awarded. That factor will presumably be a constant, selected by the operator. Expected turnover is quite distinct from the actual turnover on an EGM. The only feature of the operation of an EGM which will be relevant is the amount wagered on the potentially winning game. It is true that at p 6 ll 27-30 the following sentence appears:
This is achieved by using a jackpot trigger which is directly related to the wager bet on a respective game and the turnover instead of using conventional combination triggers.
126 This statement occurs in a detailed description of the preferred embodiments. In my view, it refers back to the earlier references to expected turnover rather than to actual turnover on any one machine or on all machines. Similar comments apply to the references at p 7 ll 20-25, p 9 ll 7-11 and p 11 ll 1-3.
127 There are also references in the claims to "turnover" and to "average turnover" or "desired average turnover". This probably bespeaks some looseness in drafting. There is, as far as I can see, nothing in the specification which would explain how turnover (as opposed to average turnover) could be used. In view of the detailed explanation of the process, it is most unlikely that such an issue would have been overlooked. For the sake of completeness I should say that there is nothing in the patent which suggests that the jackpot is to be awarded when the total turnover, either of an EGM or of the system, equals the anticipated average. Indeed, the fact that it is an average demonstrates an expectation that actual turnover between jackpots will fluctuate. The desired average turnover is inserted into the equation to regulate the frequency with which jackpots are awarded. It says nothing about the way in which individual machines will be awarded the jackpot. That depends upon the amount wagered in each game. I accept Mr Hopkins' evidence as to the operation of the Hyperlink system. Probability of a win is dependent upon the amount wagered in any particular winning game. Hyperlink did not anticipate the invention.
128 Dr Horsburgh said that exhibit MAH 4 to his affidavit discloses a variation upon the Hyperlink system. In par 90 of his affidavit, he observed of exhibit MAH 4:
On page 5 at line 23 the specification states, 'The controller would be programmed (step 30) to select a winner n times in a user-defined period (step 31). Once the controller decides that it is time for a prize to be awarded (step 32) the mth game to be played from that instant becomes the winner (step 34), where m is a random number chosen between user selected limits.
129 Obviously enough, the system as so described makes no reference to amounts wagered over an elapsed period of time. However Dr Horsburgh continued at par 90:
The selection of a winner is described as occurring at a random time on page 6 at line 28ff. Playing of a game requires a wager, thus the probability of winning a prize is dependent upon wagering an amount in the period while the m games are being counted. If claim 1 of the Neurizon Patent were valid the invention described in the Aristocrat Patent would infringe. Therefore Claim 1 of the Neurizon Patent lacks novelty in light of the Aristocrat patent.
130 I do not accept the logic of this proposition. Once again it fails to recognize that the key to the invention in the patent in suit is not the amount of the wager on a particular game, but rather the amount wagered over an elapsed period of time. Dr Horsburgh's reliance upon the divisional application, which is exhibit MAH 5, is based upon this same line of reasoning.
131 The respondents also rely upon what is described as the "Wintech patent" which is exhibit MAH 6 to the affidavit of Dr Horsburgh. Dr Horsburgh's observations concerning it demonstrate why, in my view, it has no application. At par 92 he quoted from the specification as follows:
An even simpler jackpot game is to make the jackpot a fixed amount and to generate a random time within a specified time frame (1 hour, 24 hours etc …). When the time arrives a venue is randomly selected and then the jackpot controller 32 at the venue makes the next EGM to make a contribution the winner. A slightly fairer model is to randomly select the venue from a list that is weighted according to each venue's average total contribution rates over a selected period. Again the jackpot controller 32 is notified and the next EGM to make a contribution is the winner.
132 Dr Horsburgh commented:
Thus an EGM can only win the jackpot if it is at the selected venue and the probability of selecting a venue is dependent upon the average contribution (amount wagered) over a selected period (elapsed period).
133 In the first embodiment mentioned above, the process of selecting a venue is entirely random, without reference to amounts wagered at the various venues. The first machine to be played thereafter at the selected venue wins. The probability of any EGM winning a jackpot would not be dependent in any sense upon the amount wagered on that machine in an elapsed period or otherwise. In the second embodiment (said to be "slightly fairer"), selection of a venue would be from a list "weighted" according to each venue's average total contribution rate over a selected period. It is not clear what is meant by the expressions "average total contribution rate" and "a selected period". Presumably, total wagers at a venue would make it more likely that such venue would be assigned the jackpot, although wagers at other venues might have off-setting effects. In any event, the winning EGM is still to be that which is first played after identification of the winning venue, uninfluenced by any amount wagered on that EGM over an elapsed period or otherwise. Wintech did not anticipate the patent in suit.
134 The respondents rely on what is called the "Mikohn patent" which is exhibit MAH 7 to Dr Horsburgh's affidavit. Dr Horsburgh described the invention as follows:
It describes a controller-based progressive jackpot system for linked gaming machines (the Mikohn invention). The Mikohn invention is summarized at page 6 ln 6ff. Each time a gaming machine is played a current value is incremented by a fixed amount of each bet received. When the incremented current value is equal to or exceeds a bonus mode value the system enters a bonus mode time period in which eligible machines compete for randomly awarded bonus jackpots. To be eligible for play in the bonus mode a machine must have received a monetary amount within a predetermined time frame. Thus, the probability of any given machine winning a bonus jackpot (prize) is dependent upon a monetary amount (at least some of the amount wagered on the machine) during an elapsed period (the bonus mode time period). The timing for the elapsed period is described in detail on page 20 from line 24 with reference to Figure 4. The specification states at 25, 'the Controller 200 determines the eligibility of the gaming machine by continually sensing a pre-determined time frame Δ T after game play has started S.'
135 Mr Daly said (at par 12):
… I became intimately familiar with the methodology of the Mikohn jackpot system. It was a mystery jackpot system of the standard Frankovic type. This involved a jackpot having a lower and upper limit, generating a random number to pick the actual jackpot amount between the upper and lower limit (the exact size of the jackpot not being disclosed and hence the stylisation of this jackpot as 'mystery'). Under this system, a percentage of the turnover contributed by wagers on all linked machines is allocated to an accumulated jackpot pool. The pool increases until the accumulated jackpot pool equals or exceeds the mystery jackpot amount. The machine which causes this trigger is the jackpot winning machine. Under this Mikohn jackpot system, and other standard Frankovic mystery jackpots, the jackpot pool is made up of only a portion of the amount wagered, and so the trigger for the jackpot is comprised of only a portion of the amount wagered on the winning machine.
136 Although Mr Dobbin's evidence on this aspect is referred to in the respondents' submissions, my understanding is that such evidence was excluded. In any event, it takes the matter no further. Mr Hopkins said of the Mikohn system:
In the system and method described by Dr Horsburgh as the Mikohn Patent (Australian patent number 736679), a machine's eligibility to win (or possibility of winning) a prize requires that a game is played on that machine in the relevant time period. The amount wagered effects (and increases) the jackpot pool. The amount wagered also has an effect on eligibility, as an amount must be wagered in order to play the game, but does not effect probability of a win.
137 I have found the Mikohn Patent rather difficult to read and understand, but Mr Hopkins' view appears to be correct. In particular, the question of eligibility to participate in the jackpot is described most clearly in the summary of the invention at pp 6-7 where the following passage appears:
The system determines which gaming machines are eligible by locking in all gaming machines that have received a monetary amount within a predetermined time frame after play has started in response to entering the bonus mode time period.
138 In other words, those machines which are played within a fixed period of time after commencement of the bonus mode time period may participate in the jackpot awarding process, but will not necessarily win. Dr Horsburgh referred to a passage which appears on p 32 as follows:
Even though the player selection is random, both in time and in identity, playing the maximum coin insert rather than a single coin insert and playing as rapidly as possibly increases the odds that the player may be the player to bring the current value 530 equal to the award trigger 520.
139 This means that by maximizing the amount wagered on each game and the number of games played during the bonus period, the gambler will improve the prospects of winning. That may be so, but the probability of a win on each wager is not in any way affected by the amount previously wagered.
140 The respondents rely on what is described as the "Acres patent" which is contained in exhibit MAH 8 to Dr Horsburgh's affidavit. Dr Horsburgh described that invention as follows:
A predetermined percentage of the money played is allocated to a bonus pool. When the bonus pool exceeds a predetermined level a bonus period is initiated. A machine may win a bonus (jackpot prize) if a predetermined event occurs. In one form of the Acres Invention (pg 4/5 ln 1) the predetermined event is making a wager. In the further preferred feature (pg 4/5 ln 8) a machine is only eligible to win a bonus if a predetermined minimum gaming device activity is achieved. In one example (pg 48 ln 19) a player is only eligible for a bonus time jackpot if at least 20 coins are played over the last three minutes.
141 As I understand it, a bonus period is initiated when the pool exceeds a pre-determined value. The bonus may then be awarded upon the occurrence of any pre-determined event, preferably "a predetermined transaction at the gaming device", such as a wager. There is no suggestion that the probability of winning the bonus should be dependent upon the amount wagered over an elapsed period of time. Dr Horsburgh suggested that in the second aspect of that patent, eligibility for the bonus is dependent upon minimum gaming device activity. He referred to p 4/5 l 8 of the Acres patent as supporting that proposition. In my view the reference there is to a test of eligibility for a bonus, and not to probability of any particular EGM winning it. Dr Horsburgh then referred to the following passages at p 48 of the Acres patent:
At ll 9-11:
The subfield (B) of the bonus time data specifies whether the player is eligible for the bonus time data only if the player is playing the maximum coin in the machine.
At ll 18-20:
For example, the player can be required to play at least 20 coins over the last three minutes in order to be eligible for the bonus time jackpot.
142 He suggested that these passages anticipate the invention. Unfortunately, in order to fully understand this submission it is necessary to discuss the Acres patent in some detail.
143 Table 2 on p 47 is said to be "an example of a data structure for storing the reconfiguration data". It appears in a discussion of computer programmes. I suspect, without being sure, that "reconfiguration" means reconfiguration of the usual operating system to make provision for operation in a "bonus mode". Table 2 is divided into three parts namely "Bonus Type", "Mystery Jackpot Data" and "Bonus Time Data". It is the third of these which is presently relevant. At p 47 l 33 and on p 48 the following passage appears:
The bonus time jackpot is a promotion wherein the machine pays out more than that dictated by its default payout schedule. In one embodiment of the bonus type time promotion, the payout schedule of the machine can be modified to a multiple of its default to payout schedule, … .
144 I take this to mean that the machine will pay out multiples of what it would normally pay out for ordinary wins. The passage continues:
This promotion can be used to encourage gaming activity during off-peak hours, eg, midnight to 4.00 a.m. on weeknights. Alternatively, the bonus time promotion can be activated on a random basis. The timing of the multiple jackpot is specified by the casino on one of the computers connected to the network. The bonus time data also specifies the conditions under which the player becomes eligible for the bonus time jackpot. The subfield (B) of the bonus time data specifies whether the player is eligible for the bonus time data only if the player is playing the maximum coin in the machine. Subfield (C) limits the bonus time promotion to a pre-determined number in seconds. This field limits the bonus time promotion to a pre-determined number of seconds; if the player does not hit a jackpot within this specified time period, the bonus time promotion concludes. The minimum activity level can also be specified in subfield (D). This field can be used to specify the minimum activity level required by the player in order to be eligible for the bonus time jackpot. For example, the player could be required to play at least 20 coins over the last three minutes in order to be eligible for the bonus time jackpot. An indicator light on the player's machine can be used to indicate when the player reaches the minimum activity level and thereby becomes eligible for the bonus time jackpot.
145 The relevant bonus is the opportunity to play an EGM in a bonus mode for a period "limited to a predetermined number of seconds", and "if the player does not hit a jackpot within the specified time period, the bonus time promotion concludes". Dr Horsburgh pointed out that to win a jackpot, a player must wager, and that the more he or she wagers in the available time, the greater the chance of hitting a jackpot. From this he inferred that the probability of a player hitting the jackpot was dependent upon the amount wagered during the bonus period. All of this may be true, but I do not understand it to relate to the patent in suit. As I have indicated, the invention considers the probability at the time of each wager.
146 Referring to the proposed requirement that a player play at least twenty coins over a three minute period in order to be eligible for the bonus time jackpot, Dr Horsburgh argued that this was not a test of eligibility to participate in the bonus period, but a criterion for winning the jackpot. It is difficult to see how this could be so in view of the following passage:
The minimum activity level can also be specified in subfield (D). This field can be used to specify the minimum activity level required by the player in order to be eligible for the bonus time jackpot.
147 The language of eligibility cannot easily be converted into the language of probability. Further, the statement that the minimum activity level can "also be specified in subfield (D)" suggests that it is specified elsewhere. This appears to be a reference to the discussion of sub-field (B) which sub-field "specifies whether the player is eligible for the bonus time data only if the player is playing the maximum coin in the machine." In my view, what is contemplated is that once a player is eligible to participate in the bonus period, prizes will be won or lost according to the method normally used for awarding prizes on that machine. However the prizes will be multiples of the prizes normally awarded. The passages referred to by Dr Horsburgh do not relate to "probability" in the sense in which the term is used in the patent in suit.
148 Mr Dobbin also referred to the Acres patents at par 41 of his affidavit. However his evidence appears to go to common general knowledge at the relevant time and is not relevant for present purposes.
149 Dr Horsburgh also referred to another Acres patent application which is exhibit MAH 9, particularly at p 9 l 18. It is there suggested that eligibility for a bonus might be determined by reference to, amongst other things, "specified play rate in coins/minute". I have some difficulty in understanding this aspect of the application. At p 8 l 9 et seq there is a discussion of the process for identifying the "selected machine" which is to go into "bonus mode". This is to be done by using some form of technology, having no relationship to any amount wagered. The following paragraph commences at l 15:
A second level query (step 114) is made to determine whether a player on a selected machine would be eligible for bonuses payable during the bonus session. Examples of eligibility criteria, such as payment of a MAX bet, are listed below. If the player is deemed eligible, then the MCI authorizes payment (step 116) of the bonus according to the bonus mode rules stored in gaming machine memory.
150 Step 114 is further explained on p 9, under the heading "Eligible for Bonus? (step 114)". The passage is as follows:
Besides no play on the game, there could be any number of criteria used to determine if a game is eligible for the bonus. Examples are listed below:
- Gaming machine ID matches ID listed within bonus token.
- Player tracking card 66 (FIG 2) must be inserted in gaming machine 12.
- Maximum coin bet must be played.
- Specified play rate in coins/minute.
- A particular reel sequence is obtained.
- The 'rating' of the player currently at the machine (eg whether he or she is a valued patron of the casino).
If the selected gaming machine is deemed eligible, then play proceeds to the next step in which the bonus is paid to the player (step 116). If the gaming machine is not eligible, then step 116 is skipped and a determination is made whether the bonus period has expired (step 118). In either case, however, pay table jackpots would be paid out normally given the proper reel sequence.
151 To the extent that it is relevant, I understand all of this to mean that a random system is used to identify a "selected machine". Whether or not the bonus will be paid to that machine depends upon any one of a number of factors. However they are, again, matters of eligibility. There is no question of probability dependent upon amount wagered in an elapsed period or otherwise.
152 Finally, Dr Horsburgh referred to what is described as the "IGT application" which is exhibit MAH 10 to his affidavit. He said of that application at pars 107-108 of his affidavit:
The gaming system shows a number of gaming machines linked to a control means which conducts prize draws by, in one embodiment, comparing random numbers … . Each gaming machine has a random opportunity to win a jackpot. The specification states on page 10 that, 'random should be taken to mean an event not dependent upon or necessarily manipulated by previous events or a history relating to the playing of a playing station …'. This statement correlates with the definition on non-deterministic at page 1 line 16. The IGT application describes (pg 11 ln 9) that, 'the controller will deduce the probability of the jackpot outcome which represents a player having one chance in N of winning the jackpot per unit bet …'. The specification states on page 11 at line 18 that the sum of all contributing stations is relayed to the jackpot engine 'as often as required', which implies a period which elapses between relay of contributions.
I conclude that the IGT application describes a gaming system comprising a number of gaming machines and a control means. The control means conducts a series of prize draws which give each machine an opportunity to win a prize on a non-deterministic basis. The control means also determines winning probability for each machine (or player). The probability of any given machine winning a prize is dependent upon the amount wagered (per unit bet) during an elapsed period (between relaying the sum of contributions as often as required).
153 On p 11 ll 7 et seq of the application, it is said that:
There are essentially three stages in the random jackpot gaining system, namely an initial stage, contribution stage and winning stage.
154 The specification then discusses the initial stage before addressing the contribution and winning stages. The reference to relaying "the sum of all contributing stations" is clearly to the contribution stage and not to the winning stage. The winning stage is addressed on p 12 where it is said that:
Once the contribution values are set, each unit bet at a site causes the controller to call the random number generator which is the first step in the winning stage. The site or machine which wins the jackpot is that which contributes the winning unit which causes the random number jackpot to determine chance N as equal to zero.
155 The passage referred to by Dr Horsburgh has nothing to do with probability of a win.