ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd v Bramco Electronics - [2003] APO 47

OFFICIAL NOTICE
DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
Application : No. 704930 in the name of ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd

Title: Load Control Module

Action: Opposition under Section 59 of the Patents Act 1990 by Bramco Electronics

Decision: Issued 31 October 2003.
Abstract

The present invention relates to a load control module and finds particular use in underground mining environments. The module of the invention includes a sensor unit associated with the load for providing a first signal indicative of predetermined operating parameters of the load and a controller which receives the first signal and which also provides a second signal to the switch gear to isolate the load from the power source when the load does not comply with the operating parameters.
Claim 1 is unclear in its production of a signal that is "indicative" of the "predetermined operating conditions" rather than a signal that transmits the "predetermined operating conditions" to the controller. Furthermore, the expression "predetermined operating conditions" was unclear, as it is uncertain whether it was "operating envelope" of the load (i.e. load data) that was uploaded to the controller at startup or mere operating data. Consequently, claim 1 lacks fair basis. As a result of this lack of clarity and fair basis, claim 1 was found to include within its scope the uploading of mere machine recognition data. As none of the dependent claims, apart from the omnibus claim, add any further matter that would delimit the expression "predetermined operating parameters of the load" or term "indicative", it follows that claims 2 to 7 are similarly deficient.

While it was common ground between the parties that mere machine recognition is known, this was insufficient to demonstrate that the claims lacked either novelty or an inventive step.
An award of costs above the schedule fees was considered appropriate, such costs including the actual cost of attendance at the re-convened hearing but excluding the preparation of costs for the hearing.
PATENTS ACT 1990
DECISION OF A DELEGATE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS
Re:Patent Application No. 704930 by ATF Mining Electronics Pty Ltd and Section 59 opposition thereto by Bramco Electronics.
BACKGROUND

Patent application 704930 in the name of ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd was filed as a PCT application PCT/AU94/00492 by Metal Manufacturers Limited and was accorded AU74853/94. The PCT application claimed priority from an earlier Australian provisional PM0808 filed on 24 August 1993. The application proceeded to acceptance and was subsequently advertised as accepted on 6 May 1999. On 6 August 1999, Bramco Electronics filed a notice of opposition. On 22 November 1999, ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd requested recordal of an assignment dated 17 June 1999 from Metal Manufacturers Limited to itself. The statement of grounds and particulars was served on 8 November 1999 with a subsequent amendment of the particulars being allowed on 24 May 2002. Evidence in support was completed on 7 August 2000, evidence in answer on 7 November 2001, and evidence in reply on 23…

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 ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd v Bramco Electronics 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: [2003] APO 47
Decision Date: 31 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd v Bramco Electronics, the dispute centred around the validity of patent application 704930 filed by ATF Mining Electrics Pty Ltd for a load control module, which was opposed by Bramco Electronics. The invention related to a load control module for use in underground mining environments, which included a sensor unit associated with the load and a controller for receiving a signal indicative of predetermined operating parameters of the load. The module would isolate the load from the power source when the load did not comply with the predetermined operating parameters. The opposition raised issues of clarity, fair basis, novelty, and inventive step. The court found that claim 1 was unclear and lacked fair basis, as it included the uploading of mere machine recognition data. Furthermore, the court found that while mere machine recognition was common general knowledge, it did not render the claims lacking an inventive step. The court awarded costs to the opponent, excluding preparation costs for the hearing and costs associated with the petty patents and S210 notice. The applicant was given 60 days to propose suitable amendments to the claims.

Orders