Apple Inc. - [2018] APO 72

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Apple Inc. [2018] APO 72

Patent Application: 2016203040

Title:Devices, methods, and graphical user interfaces for manipulating user interface objects with visual and/or haptic feedback

Patent Applicant:                   Apple Inc.
Hearing Officer:  Greg Powell
Decision Date:  26 October 2018
Hearing Date:  Written Submissions filed 2 February 2018

Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner’s objections – graphical user interfaces with haptic control – novelty and inventive step –– application accepted
Representation: FPA Patent Attorneys Pty Ltd

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Apple Inc. [2018] APO 72

Patent Application: 2016203040

Title:Devices, methods, and graphical user interfaces for manipulating user interface objects with visual and/or haptic feedback

Patent Applicant:                   Apple Inc.
Delegate:  Greg Powell
Decision Date:  26 October 2018
DECISION

The claims as proposed to be amended are novel and involve an inventive step. I direct that the application be accepted.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background

Apple Inc. (“the applicant”) filed patent application 2016203040 (“the application”) on 8 March 2016 as an international application under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (“PCT”). The international application is designated PCT/US2016/021400. The earliest priority date is 8 March 2015.

The application was subjected to two examination reports. The first examination report issued 17 October 2016 raised new documents found in an original search, and also relied on documents raised during international examination. The applicant filed a statement of proposed amendments under Section 104 to address the objections raised in that report on 28 September 2017.
A second examination report was issued 16 October 2017, the day before the final date for acceptance, and maintained the objections of the first report. After the second report the applicant requested a hearing on 17 October 2017, the final date for acceptance.
The applicant filed written submissions for the hearing and filed amendments on 2 February 2018. I have considered these proposed amendments and am of the view they are clearly allowable as they comply with requirements of s102 (1). This decision is therefore based on the claims as proposed to be amended on 2 February 2018.
While the final date for acceptance of the application was 17 October 2017, patent sub-regulation 13.4(1) (g) is available to extend the time for gaining acceptance to at least 3 months from the date of the present decision.
Applicable law
The present application was filed after 15 April 2013. As such, it 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”). Amendments to sections 7, 40 and 49 of the Act apply to the present case as a consequence of Schedule 1, items 55(1)(d) and 55(4)(a), and Schedule 6, item 133(7)(d) of the Raising the Bar Act.
Thus the standard of proof that applies in the present case is the balance of probabilities. 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…

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 Apple Inc.

Details

AGLC: Apple Inc. [2018] APO 72
Case: [2018] APO 72
Decision Date: 26 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Apple Inc. filed patent application 2016203040 with the Australian Patent Office, seeking protection for a method and device for manipulating user interface objects with visual and/or haptic feedback. The application was subjected to two examination reports raising objections under the grounds of novelty and inventive step. The applicant filed amendments to the claims in response to the objections. The delegate was required to determine whether the claims, as amended, met the requirements of novelty, inventive step and utility disclosure under the Patents Act 1990.

The delegate found that the claims, as amended, were novel in light of the prior art. While the prior art document D4 disclosed a device with a pressure sensitive interface, it failed to disclose the feature of displaying a sequence of images based on the contact intensity on the touch sensitive surface, and reversing the sequence when the intensity decreased. The delegate also found that the claims, as amended, involved an inventive step. While the prior art disclosed dynamically adjusting the magnitude of a control element effect based on the intensity of the touch, there was no teaching or suggestion to begin the sequence of images based on a first contact intensity, and to reverse it when the contact intensity was decreased. The delegate was not satisfied that this would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art.

The delegate directed that the application be accepted. The final orders were that the application be accepted and a certificate of patent issued in the form set out in the schedule to the decision.

Orders