An innovative patent must provide a substantial contribution to the working of the invention.  The case concerned the display of information on fixed and handheld devices.  The provision of a handheld remote control was not seen as a substantial contribution to the working of the invention.  Absent any remote display, the provision of information on a remote display would have provided a substantial contribution.
Invalidating an innovation patent for want of innovative step can be a difficult process.  Features that provide any type of advantage in the context of the invention may be seen to provide a substantial improvement to the working of the thing (and not to be seen as superficial or peripheral to the invention). For this reason it is generally necessary to find a clear knockout in a single document or an act.  A single source of information test applies that excludes general incorporations by reference.
Features disclosed in a drawing were held to provide sufficient support for amendments to the claim scope of an invention.
A presentation of information type application was held to lack a techical effect in Europe
The Applicant had been given an opportunity to amend.  In considering whether to grant a further opportunity to amend, weight was given to:(i) the invention having patentable subject matter; and (ii) there there being a genuine attempt to amend.
This case considered claim support under the Patents Act 1990 (Australia)
Matters before the Patent Office are judged on the basis of a balance of probabilities. Apple Inc. [2021] APO 28 illustrates that matters an alleged prior public use will be scrutinized with care.
There have been a number of decisions from the Australian Patent Office regarding some software related inventions.  Apple Inc. [2021] APO 18 is a favourable decision.