This new method can be used with a computer, to achieve a much faster and efficient comparison of inventions.

The Figure illustrates a data structure for presenting an invention, enhanced with info which facilitates the examination using the patentability criteria.

The parts of the description evolve logically and sequentially each from the previous one:
the field of the invention
the function of the invention
the prior art used to implement that function
a description of the invention, and the advantages and/or benefits of the invention vs. the prior art.

Actually the description is bi-dimensional, for in addition to the above description presenting in a logical, sequential form the invention, there are presented the conclusions regarding patentability, each aspect of the patentability criteria as found in the description:
- is it non-excluded matter?
- is the invention novel?
- is there a complete description of a useful invention (utility)?
- is the invention non-obvious?

and/or on Secondary Considerations, as the applicant deems adequate.

In USA, non-obviousness arguments should relate to the criteria established by the US Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al.,
also in Graham v. John Deere Co.

This data structure helps find answers to these and other relevant questions, either manually or automatically.

Patentability criteria: Software patents - Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are considered descriptive material per se and are not statutory.
See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory).

Software makes extensive use of data structures - all software comprises algorithms and data structures. The patent application, therefore, should describe the structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which allow the data structure's functionality to be realized.