ADB Safegate Sweden AB - [2024] APO 24

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

ADB Safegate Sweden AB [2024] APO 24

Patent Application: 2022201028

Title:Control system at an airport

Patent Applicant: ADB Safegate Sweden AB

Delegate: Tim Gillett

Decision Date: 21 June 2024

Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 3 April 2024

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 45 – examiner’s objection – inventive step – manner of manufacture – airport gate assignment and control system– estimated arrival time – flight plan – not a manner of manufacture – application refused

Representation: Patent attorney for the Applicant: Michael Buck IP

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2022201028

Title:Control system at an airport

Patent Applicant: ADB Safegate Sweden AB

Date of Decision: 21 June 2024

DECISION

The claims of the application, as proposed to be amended are not for a manner of manufacture. I cannot see any subject matter in the specification which could be used to overcome this issue.

I refuse the application.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

Patent application 2022201028 (‘the present application’) was filed on 16 February 2022 in the name of ADB Safegate Sweden AB (‘the Applicant’). It is a divisional application with parent application 2018274586 (‘the parent’) being the national phase entry of PCT/EP2018/063299.

Three examination reports have been issued for the present application with each report asserting that the claims are not for a manner of manufacture and not inventive. A further four examination reports have been issued for the parent with similar issues noted.
Amendments to the specification have been proposed on 9 August 2023. No objection has been taken to these amendments during examination and I cannot see any reason for which they would not be allowable. All further references to the specification will be to that as proposed to be amended on 9 August 2023.
The Applicant requested to be heard on 22 September 2023 and provided submissions on 3 April 2024 as requested.

The examination of the present application is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (‘the Act’) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (‘the Raising the Bar Act’) as the application was filed after 15 April 2013. Thus, the standard of proof that applies in the present case is the balance of probabilities (subsection 49(1)). I must accept the application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the application complies with the Act. If I am not so satisfied, then I can refuse the application (subsection 49(2)).

Description

The application is directed toward identifying when incoming aircraft will arrive at the gate of an airport. The specification provides a background section as follows which I found useful:

Before every flight, a flight plan is created and filed with the local Civil Aviation Authority. The flight plan is a document indicating the plane's planned route or flight path. It generally includes basic information such as departure and arrival points, estimated time en route, alternative airports in case of bad weather,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ADB Safegate Sweden AB and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] APO 24
Decision Date: 21 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

ADB Safegate Sweden AB sought to patent a control system designed to manage the assignment and preparation of gates for incoming aircraft at airports. The Australian Patent Office, represented by Delegate Tim Gillett, examined the application and found it to be deficient in several key areas, leading to its refusal. The primary issue identified by the Delegate was that the application did not meet the criteria of being a "manner of manufacture" under section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990. The Applicant argued that the system solved a technical problem by integrating real-time data to improve gate preparation accuracy, but the Delegate found that the problem identified was not inherently technical and that the solution offered was more of an administrative scheme rather than a technical innovation. The Delegate noted that the Applicant's proposed solution involved integrating existing data and adjusting business processes, which did not constitute a technical problem or solution. Furthermore, the Delegate considered that the claimed invention did not improve the functioning of the computer or lie in the generation, presentation, or arrangement of intellectual information. The Delegate concluded that the application lacked the substance required to be considered a manner of manufacture and, as such, the application was refused.

Orders