Amadeus S.A.S. - [2022] APO 76

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Amadeus S.A.S. [2022] APO 76

Patent Application: 2016200417

Title:Undo/redo of database files for modifying re-accommodation

Patent Applicant:                   Amadeus S.A.S.
Delegate:  Dr V. Z. Kolev
Decision Date:  28 November 2022
Hearing Date:  Written submissions filed on 13 December 2021

Catchwords: PATENTS – sections 45 and 49 – hearing with respect to examiner’s objections – manner of manufacture – inventive step – computerised reservation systems for travel-related services – re-accommodation of travel itineraries due to schedule changes – modifying previous re-accommodation – business innovation – the claimed invention is not a manner of manufacture – no patentable subject matter described in the specification – inventive step not considered – application refused
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Griffith Hack

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2016200417

Title:Undo/redo of database files for modifying re-accommodation

Patent Applicant: Amadeus S.A.S.
Date of Decision: 28 November 2022
DECISION
The invention claimed in each one of the claims, as proposed to be amended, is not a manner of manufacture. Furthermore, based on the matter described in the body of the specification, I am of the opinion that no allowable amendment could result in claiming a patentable invention. In light of this, I will not decide with respect to inventive step as this will be inconsequential.
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION

Throughout this decision, unless explicitly stated otherwise, any reference to the Act, or to a specific section or subsection, refers to the Patents Act 1990, and any reference to the Regulations, or to a specific regulation or subregulation, refers to the Patents Regulations 1991. In addition, any reference to the Commissioner refers to the Commissioner of Patents as per the Act.
BACKGROUND
The matter relates to patent application 2016200417 (the Application) in the name of Amadeus S.A.S. (the Applicant). The Application was filed on 25 January 2016 as a Convention application claiming priority from EP 15 290 017.1 and US 14/604,977. The earliest claimed priority date is 26 January 2015.
The request for examination was filed on 16 December 2019 and the Application was subject to two examination reports as detailed below.
Examination report No. 1 was issued on 5 November 2020. The report contained objections with respect to manner of manufacture and inventive step. A response to the report was filed on 17 June 2021 together with a set of proposed amendments to the specification of the Application (the Specification). In this first statement of proposed amendments, the Applicant proposed, under item 1, amendments to the description.
Examination report No. 2 (the Last Report) was issued on 9 July 2021. In the report, the Examiner maintained the objections with respect to manner of manufacture and inventive step. No new objections were raised.
On 24 August 2021, the Applicant requested a hearing, which was conducted by way of written submissions.
SUBMISSIONS
On 13 December 2021, the Applicant filed a document titled “Written Submissions” (the Applicant’s Submissions

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.

Continue reading Amadeus S.A.S.

Details

AGLC: Amadeus S.A.S. [2022] APO 76
Case: [2022] APO 76
Decision Date: 28 November 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Amadeus S.A.S. sought to patent an invention relating to a method of modifying travel itineraries to accommodate schedule changes in a Computer Reservations System (CRS). The invention involved keeping detailed records of changes to travel itineraries in reports and history files associated with each Passenger Name Record (PNR). The proposed solution allowed for the recovery of previous states of travel itineraries and their subsequent modifications. The invention did not suggest any specific hardware components or software techniques beyond the capabilities of the skilled addressee were required for implementation. The invention was claimed in 15 claims, of which claim 1 was the only independent claim. The decision concerned the objection of the Examiner that the invention was not a manner of manufacture. The Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents considered the objection and found that the invention did not constitute a manner of manufacture as it lacked any inventive step in the computer implementation. The Delegate found that the invention was essentially a business method implemented on a computer, without any significant ingenuity in the computer implementation. The Delegate therefore refused the application.

Orders