Amadeus S.A.S - [2016] APO 56

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Amadeus S.A.S [2016] APO 56

Patent Application 2012206666

Title:Method for auditing a bag drop in a transportation departure control system

Patent Applicant: Amadeus S.A.S

Hearing officer: P M Spann - Deputy Commissioner of Patents

Decision Date: 17 August 2016

Hearing Date: 24 June 2016 by written submissions

Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner’s objections – method of improving security in a self-service check-in system – abstract idea or mere scheme – no patentable subject matter disclosed – application refused.

Representation: Patent applicant: Dr M Summerfield, Watermark.

IP AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE

Patent Application: 2012206666

Title:Method for auditing a bag drop in a transportation departure control system

Patent Applicant: Amadeus S.A.S

Date of Decision: 17 August 2016

DECISION

Patent application 2012206666 is refused pursuant to subsection 49(2) of the Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter concerns examiner’s objections in respect of the application and whether I should exercise the Commissioner’s power to refuse the application under subsection 49(2) of the Patents Act 1990.

Background

Patent application 2012206666 is a PCT application. It was filed as an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT/EP2012/050255) on 9 January 2012. Following entry to the national phase it has been the subject of three adverse examination reports, each including objections that the subject matter claimed is not a manner of manufacture. Several statements of proposed amendments have been filed, but, since the examiner’s objections were maintained, the applicant requested to be heard on the basis of written submissions.

The applicant filed its submission on 24 June 2016 together with a further statement of proposed amendments.

I note that the provisions of subregulation 13.4(1)(g) to extend the period for acceptance to 3 months from the date of this decision do not apply to the present application. This is because examination was requested prior to 15 April 2013 and the amendments made by the Intellectual Property Legislation Amendment (Raising the Bar) Regulation 2013 do not apply (see r 23.26(4) Item38). However an extension of the period for acceptance has been granted to 2 October 2016 based on errors by the applicant in relation to their understanding of the transitional provisions as they apply to this case.

The patent specification

The subject matter of the application concerns auditing of baggage drops in transportation computer systems. A typical implementation of this involves a computerised check in-kiosk where the traveller enters information and obtains a boarding pass. If checking in luggage, baggage labels or tags are generated to be attached to each item to be checked in. The traveller then takes the luggage to a bag-drop station where luggage check-in is completed including weighing and other checks.

The specification indicates that security measures are taken to ensure that the person who dropped the bags is the person travelling and identifies fingerprint scanning as one known method of achieving this. However it suggests that this is expensive and potentially unreliable. Without such identification there is the potential for a person to make a fraudulent bag drop…

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 [2016] APO 56
Case: [2016] APO 56
Decision Date: 17 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Patent application 2012206666, filed by Amadeus S.A.S, was refused by the Australian Patent Office. The application relates to a method for auditing bag drops in a transportation departure control system. The examiner raised objections under Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990, arguing that the claims did not define a manner of manufacture. The applicant submitted that the invention was a technological innovation, not a business innovation, and was directed to a combination of specific hardware and software modules that worked together to implement the inventive system. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Patents found that the substantive effect or contribution of the claimed invention lay in the outcome of the security protocol, which did not involve the solution of a technical problem. The claims were considered to be directed to an abstract idea or mere scheme and did not disclose patentable subject matter. Consequently, the application was refused.

Orders