[153] We agree, as mentioned above, that the instant application involves wagering actions with obligations, liabilities, economic position changes and settlement mechanics, and that there are real-world actions and a commercially useful result, thereby satisfying the third Shell Oil requirement for patentable “art” as explained under “Legal principles” above. However, as explained above under “Legal principles”, the Federal Court of Appeal in Amazon stated that a physicality requirement is implicit in the definition of “invention” under section 2 of the Patent Act (Amazon at para 66), and that this requirement cannot be met merely by the fact that the claimed invention has a practical application (Amazon at para 69). Particularly for cases where an abstract idea is implemented using a well-known tool, the Federal Court of Appeal in Benjamin Moore stated at paragraph 94 that if the only new knowledge lies in a method itself, it is the method that must be patentable subject-matter, however if the new knowledge is simply the use of a well-known tool, such as a book or a computer, to implement this method, then the physicality requirement will likely not be satisfied without something more. We concluded that the claimed subject-matter as purposively construed involves the use of well-known tools to implement a set of poker rules and does not provide the “something more” to which the Court in Benjamin Moore refers to provide a practical application that meets the physicality requirement in Amazon.

[154] In light of the above, taking into consideration the Applicant’s submissions, our view is that, consistent with the Redetermination Preliminary Review letter, claims 1-24 on file define non-patentable subject-matter, falling outside the definition of “invention” under section 2 of the Patent Act and prohibited under subsection 27(8) of the Patent Act.