Apple Inc.

Apple Inc. was involved in a patent application proceeding in the Australian Patents Office. The dispute centred around the patentability of a computer implemented invention related to a graphical user interface, specifically the generation of a user interface object through an animation sequence. The applicant argued that the invention was a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 18(1)(a) of the relevant statute, while the examiner raised objections. The case was heard by Isaac Tan, a Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents.

The central legal issue was whether the invention, as claimed, constituted a manner of manufacture. The court considered whether the substance of the invention related to the generation of a user interface object, which was optimised in terms of computational burden, or if it was something more, such as the production of an animation sequence. The court also needed to determine whether the state of the art at the priority date could be ascertained to decide if the invention was directed towards a manner of manufacture.

In reaching the decision, the court acknowledged that one should not immediately conclude that an application is not for a manner of manufacture just because it may generally fall within what typically constitutes excluded subject matter. The court found that an assessment of where the substance of the invention may lie should be approached holistically. The court was satisfied that the invention, as presently claimed, was not a manner of manufacture. However, the court noted that this problem could be resolved once the state of the art at the priority date of the claimed invention was determined, specifically in relation to producing user interface objects using animation sequences. The court decided to allow the examination of the application to continue and granted the applicant a period of three months from the date of the decision to attain acceptance.

The final orders of the court were that the examination of the patent application should continue and the applicant was allowed a period of three months from the date of the decision to attain acceptance. The court did not determine if the invention, as described in the specification, was directed towards a manner of manufacture, but left this issue open for further investigation.