Interactive Aroma Technology Australia Pty Ltd

Interactive Aroma Technology Australia Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent, the Commissioner of Patents, to refuse its application for a patent. The applicant's invention related to a system for dispensing aroma and a method for controlling the dispensing of aroma. The Commissioner had refused the application on the grounds that the invention lacked novelty and/or inventive step, and that it was not a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies. The matter came before Vija Zars, sitting as a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Commissioner erred in finding that the applicant's invention lacked novelty and/or inventive step, and whether the invention constituted a manner of manufacture. Specifically, the Court was required to consider whether the prior art disclosed the essential integers of the claimed invention, and if not, whether the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art. Furthermore, the Court had to determine if the claimed invention, being a system and method for dispensing aroma, fell within the established categories of patentable subject matter under the 'manner of manufacture' test.

In reaching its decision, the Court analysed the claims of the patent application and compared them against the cited prior art. The Court found that the prior art did not disclose all the essential integers of the claimed invention, and that the differences were not obvious to a skilled addressee. Consequently, the Court determined that the invention possessed novelty and an inventive step. Regarding the 'manner of manufacture' issue, the Court applied the established principles, finding that the applicant's system and method, involving a combination of physical elements and a process for controlling them, constituted a practical application of scientific principles for a useful purpose, thereby satisfying the requirement of being a manner of manufacture.

The Court ordered that the Commissioner's decision be set aside and that the application for a patent be remitted to the Commissioner for further consideration according to law.