Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V. v Nestec S.A
[2018] APO 85
•26 November 2018
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V. v Nestec S.A. [2018] APO 85
Patent Application: 2010291241
Title:Beverage machine for a network
Patent Applicant: Nestec S.A.
Opponent: Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V.
Delegate: Xavier Gisz
Decision Date: 26 November 2018
Hearing Date: 30 August 2018, in Canberra
Catchwords: PATENTS - opposition to the grant of the patent under s 59 – opposed on the basis of manner of manufacture, inventive step, utility, sufficiency of disclosure, support, and clarity – all grounds of opposition are unsuccessful – costs awarded
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Katrina Crooks and Matthew Ford, Shelston IP
Counsel for the opponent: Neil Murray and Frances St John
Patent attorney for the opponent: Nik Ramchand, Davies Collison Cave
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2010291241
Title:Beverage machine for a network
Patent Applicant: Nestec S.A.
Date of Decision: 26 November 2018
DECISION
The opposition fails on all grounds raised in this opposition. Subject to appeal, I direct the application proceed to grant.
Costs according to Schedule 8 are awarded against the Applicant up to the day when the amendments to the specification were allowed (23 February 2018) and against the Opponent from the day after the allowance of the amendments (24 February 2018).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Application 2010291241 in the name of Nestec S.A. (the Applicant) is the Australian national phase entry of PCT/EP2010/062781 (publication number WO2011/026853) and has a priority date of 2 September 2009. Examination was requested on 28 January 2015. A notice of acceptance of the application was published on 27 October 2016. A notice of opposition was filed on 27 January 2017 by Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V. (the Opponent) and a statement of Grounds and Particulars was filed by the Opponent on 27 April 2017.
Amendments to the Statement of Grounds and Particulars were proposed on 17 October 2017.
Evidence in support was completed on 27 July 2017. Evidence in answer was completed on 1 November 2017. Evidence in Reply was completed on 23 January 2018.
The applicant proposed amendments on to the specification on 1 November 2017. The amendments were allowed on 23 February 2018.
The hearing was held in Canberra on 30 August 2018.
APPLICABLE LAW
The request for examination of the patent application was filed on 28 January 2015. As a consequence, substantive amendments to the Patents Act brought about by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 that came into effect on 15 April 2013 apply to the present patent application.
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 I can refuse the application.
Grounds of opposition
The grounds of opposition relied on by the Opponent are as follows:
a. The alleged invention, so far as claimed in each claim of the Application, is not a patentable invention in that it is not a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies (s 18(1)(a)).
b. The alleged invention, so far as claimed in each claim of the Application, does not involve an inventive step when compared to the prior art base as it existed before the priority date of each claim (s 18(1)(b)(ii)).
c. The alleged invention, so far as claimed in each claim of the Application, is not useful (s 18(1)(c)).
d. The complete specification filed in respect of the Application does not disclose the alleged invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art (s 40(2)(a)).
e. The claims of the Application are not clear and succinct, and are not supported by matter disclosed in the specification (s 40(3)).
Evidence
The Opponent has filed the following declarations:
a. Declarations of Anthony James Lele made 27 July 2017 (Lele 1); 11 January 2018 (Lele 2); and 22 January 2018 (Lele 3); and
b. Declarations of Jill Slay made 27 July 2017 (Slay 1); 15 January 2018 (Slay 2); and 22 January 2018 (Slay 3).
The Applicant has filed the following declarations:
a. Declaration of Matthew Ford made 31 October 2017;
b. Declaration of Gordon Foyster made 31 October 2017; and
c. Declaration of Graeme Edward Neil MacDonald made 31 October 2017.
The Specification
The specification (as amended with proposed amendments of 1 November 2017) ends with 10 claims comprising one independent claim and nine dependent claims. The independent claim is reproduced below:
A beverage preparation machine comprising:
- an ingredient processing arrangement for processing one or more beverage ingredients to dispense a beverage, wherein the ingredient processing arrangement comprises sensors for measuring parameters of the ingredient processing arrangement and/or the beverage
preparation process;
- a control unit connected to the ingredient processing arrangement via a bidirectional communication channel for receiving information from said sensors and for controlling the processing of said one or more beverage ingredients;
- a communication module for bidirectional communication with an external network; and
- a communication user-interface connected to the communications module via a bidirectional data communication channel,
wherein the control unit is prevented from accepting beverage preparation-related or service process related control data from the communication module by the control unit being arranged to communicate data to the communication module via a unidirectional data communication channel such that, with the exception of data transmission control signals, the control unit does not receive any data from the communication module, whereby the communication module is prevented from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement.The Opponent divided the claim into integers as follows:
Claim Integers 1 A beverage preparation machine comprising: 1.1 an ingredient processing arrangement for processing one or more beverage ingredients to dispense a beverage, wherein the ingredient processing arrangement comprises sensors for measuring parameters of the ingredient processing arrangement and/or the beverage preparation process; 1.2 a control unit connected to the ingredient processing arrangement via a bidirectional communication channel for receiving information from said sensors and for controlling the processing of said one or more beverage ingredients; 1.3 a communication module for bidirectional communication with an external network; and 1.4 a communication user-interface connected to the communications module via a bidirectional data communication channel, 1.5 wherein the control unit is prevented from accepting beverage preparation-related or service process-related control data from the communication module by the control unit being arranged to communicate data to the communication module via a unidirectional data communication channel such that, with the exception of data transmission control signals, the control unit does not receive any data from the communication module, whereby the communication module is prevented from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement. The invention
The description states in the ‘background art’ section at page 3 lines 5 to 23:
“Beverage preparation machines that can be integrated in a network such as the internet are well known. Typically, such a network integration allows remote control or remote software upgrading of the beverage preparation machine [...].
However, networked beverage preparation machines are exposed to malware and other unsuitable distant parameterisation that may completely upset their configuration and lead to safety or integrity problems, especially hardware problems. For instance, the control of the beverage's heater or pump may be disturbed leading to destructive overpowering or to unsuitable powering which degrades the quality of beverages prepared with such machines. Moreover, this kind of interference may occur silently, i.e. without the user's knowledge until it is too late or without the user realizing it all when the quality of the beverage preparation is merely degraded by such inappropriate interferance [sic].”
The description states in the ‘Summary of the Invention’ at page 3 lines 30 to 37:
“It is a preferred object of the preferred embodiments of the present invention to provide a beverage preparation machine that can be connected in a network and that is protected against any upsetting involving a safety issue or a risk of damage or beverage preparation process degradation, and originating from the network, in particular in the form of a virus or other malware.”
The specification contains schematic illustrations of embodiments of the described invention:
The item numbers refer to the following elements:
1: machine
10: touch screen
11: communication module
20: user-interface
21: control unit
40: beverage preparation module
45: beverage outlet
50: remote server
60: cup
111: bi-directional data communication channel
211: unidirectional data communication channel.
221: bi-directional communication channel
411: unidirectional data communication channel
421: bi-directional communication channel
511: external networkThe invention of Figure 2 does not contain any communication between the control unit (21) and the communication module (11). The invention of Figure 3 has unidirectional communication indicated by arrow (211) between the control unit (21) and the communication module (11).
Claim 1 includes within its scope the invention as disclosed in figure 3, but does not include within its scope the invention as disclosed in figure 2.
At a practical level, the invention defined in the claims is a coffee machine that has two distinct functions. Firstly, it allows information to be sent from the coffee machine via the internet to a remote server. Secondly, the coffee machine has a user-interface that allows the user to send and receive information (such as advertising, news and weather forecasts).
Manner of manufacture legal principles
In British Celanese Ltd. v Courtaulds Ltd. [1935] RPC 171 it was stated:
“It is accepted as sound law that a mere placing side by side of old integers so that each performs its own proper function independently of any of the others is not a patentable combination, but that where the old integers when placed together have some working inter-relation producing a new or improved result then there is patentable subject-matter in the idea of the working inter-relation brought about by the collocation of the integers.”
In Advanced Building Systems Pty Ltd and Anor v Ramset Fasteners (Aust) Pty Ltd (1998) 152 ALR 604; (1998) AIPC 91-401; 40 IPR 243 at [12] the High Court referred to Welch Perrin & Co Pty Ltd v Worrell (1961) 106 CLR 588:
“Referring to the specification, their Honours said:
“It was not seriously disputed that it is for a combination, in the sense that word bears in patent law. That is to say, what is described is a machine, the elements of which are all well known and simple mechanical integers, but combined so that they are not a mere collocation of separate parts, but interact to make up a new thing.”
This notion of a 'new thing' includes a new result, 'that is, a new way of achieving an old purpose or the fulfilment of a new purpose' (Palmer v Dunlop Perdriau Rubber Co Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 30 at 67), and 'a new combination of features to obtain an improved result' (Meyers Taylor v Vicarr Industries Ltd (1977) 137 CLR 228 at 249). The significance of the exclusion of a 'mere collocation of separate parts' appears from the statement by Aickin J in Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co v Beiersdorf (Australia) Ltd (1980) 144 CLR 253 at 266 that it is 'the interaction' between the integers which is 'the essential requirement'. It is this which supplies the inventive step and denies an allegation of lack of subject-matter in the case of a valid combination patent.”
A mere collocation of parts, each performing its own separate function, is not patentable. However, a claim may validly combine a number of elements which interact with each other to produce a new result or product.
Manner of manufacture
The Opponent states at paragraph 109 of their submissions:
“The “manner of manufacture” requirement allows for exclusion from the class of patentable inventions, anything that is not, on the face of the specification, a proper subject of letters patent according to traditional principles – including on the basis of an admission, on the face of the specification, which makes clear that the invention claimed is not novel or does not involve an inventive step.”
The Opponent goes on to state at paragraph 113:
“The point in a combination patent must always be that the elements of which the combination is composed are combined together so as to produce one result. The characteristic which a combination of known integers must possess in order to afford patentable subject matter is mutual relation in the operation of such integers. Separate elements may be brought together and yet each may continue to operate as it did before. In other words, all that the patentee may have done is assemble together things or ideas which apart from sequence, order, position and proximity of association continue to perform their known functions as before. The patentee may in such a case have produced a more convenient and a better appliance or process but it has contributed nothing in doing so which amounts to invention.
There is no invention on the face of the specification. The specification admits that network-connected beverage preparation machines are “well known” (p 3 lines 5-6).
Inventiveness cannot be said to subsist in the isolation of the control unit from the external network. Isolation is said to be achieved by way of a unidirectional communication channel (integer 1.5). The specification does not teach the skilled reader what such a channel is or how to implement it (cf p 15 lines 28-41, where the channel is simply referred to and its effects explained). Thus, the specification assumes, and thereby admits, that that knowledge is within the skill of the calling.”
Although the specification acknowledges that networked beverage machines are well known, the specification does not assert that unidirectionally networked beverage machines are well known. The specification does not assert that the combination of other elements of the claimed invention: the communication module and the user-interface connected with bi‑directional communication channel are known. On the face of the specification the invention is new.
The unidirectional communication beverage preparation machine and the bidirectional user-interface share the use of the bi-directional communication device such that both the unidirectional beverage preparation machine and the bi-directional user interface can communicate with an external network (the internet). This sharing of the communication module provides a working interrelationship between the integers of the invention. In contrast, if the unidirectional beverage machine and the bidirectional user-interface each connected to the internet independently of one another then there would likely not be a working interrelationship between these integers. Consequently, the elements of the invention are not merely a collocation of integers since there is a working interrelationship between the integers.
I am satisfied that the claimed invention is a manner of manufacture.
Inventive step legal principles
Section 18(1)(b)(ii) of the Act provides: “an invention is a patentable invention … if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim … when compared with the prior art base as it existed before the priority date of that claim … involves an inventive step”.
Section 7 of the Act provides:
(2) For the purposes of this Act, an invention is to be taken to involve an inventive step when compared with the prior art base unless the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed (whether in or out of the patent area) before the priority date of the relevant claim, whether that knowledge is considered separately or together with the information mentioned in subsection (3).
(3) The information for the purposes of subsection (2) is:(a) any single piece of prior art information; or
(b) a combination of any 2 or more pieces of prior art information that the skilled person mentioned in subsection (2) could, before the priority date of the relevant claim, be reasonably expected to have combined.The prior art base is defined in Schedule 1 in the following terms:
prior art base means:
(a) in relation to deciding whether an invention does or does not involve an inventive step or an innovative step:
(i) information in a document that is publicly available, whether in or out of the patent area; and
(ii) information made publicly available through doing an act, whether in or out of the patent area.
The test for obviousness is whether it would have been a matter of routine to proceed to the claimed invention. In Wellcome Foundation Ltd v V.R. Laboratories (Aust.) Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 12 Justice Aickin stated:
“The test is whether the hypothetical addressee faced with the same problem would have taken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not.”
Inventive step
Person skilled in the art
The Opponent states at paragraph 71 of their submissions:
“The notional person skilled in the art for the purposes of the Application is a team of two people: one person with a practical interest in the design of beverage preparation machines, and one person with a practical interest in computer networking, including computer network security.”
The Applicant also provided submissions that the person skilled in the art would be a team of skilled persons. I accept this summary of the knowledge possessed by the person skilled in the art.
Four of the experts who provided evidence have knowledge possessed by a person skilled in the art. Mr Lele is an industrial designer with experience in designing coffee machine design. Mr McDonald is an industrial designer. Professor Slay is a computer security expert. Mr Foyster is a radio engineering consultant.
Mr Lele and Mr McDonald are experts with knowledge relevant to the design of beverage preparation machines, while Professor Slay and Mr Foyster are experts with knowledge relevant to computer networking.
In their submissions, the parties had differing views on the suitability of experts chosen to provide evidence. However, I see little point in elevating or diminishing the value evidence from each expert at the outset. The experts are each considered to have knowledge representative of a person skilled in the art in the respective fields, and the content of the evidence will be assessed accordingly.
The problem the invention seeks to solve
The Summary of the Invention in the specification at page 3 lines 30 to 37 states:
It is a preferred object of the preferred embodiments of the present invention to provide a beverage preparation machine that can be connected in a network and that is protected against any upsetting involving a safety issue or a risk of damage or beverage preparation process degradation, and originating from the network, in particular in the form of a virus or other malware.
The Applicant states at paragraph 102 of their submissions:
“The problem solved by the invention can generally be summarised as the unintended upsetting or interference of a network connected beverage preparation machine through exposure to viruses, malware or the like. Such upsetting or interference can lead to safety or degradation to the beverage preparation process.”
Although the Opponent did not provide a summary of the problem sought to be solved by the invention, their submissions on inventive step were consistent with the above quoted part of the description and with the Applicant’s summary of the invention. I am satisfied that problem to be solved is as provided in the above quoted part of the description and as summarised in the Applicant’s submissions.
Obviousness in light of common general knowledge alone
The Opponent states at paragraph 172 and 173 of their submissions:
“Together, Mr Lele and Prof Slay say each integer of every claim of the Application, in combination, was common general knowledge. In light of that evidence, the invention was obvious.
This is particularly emphasised by Mr Lele’s response when he was given the Background section of the specification and asked to solve the problem identified in it. He nominated, as the solution he would have suggested at the Priority Date, the very invention proposed in claim 1 (Lele 1 [76]-[77]).”
Mr Lele states at (Lele 1) paragraphs 76 to 77:
“The alternative to a unidirectional communication mechanism would be a bidirectional communication mechanism, which would allow information to flow both into and out of the beverage preparation machine. It would be the choice of the designer as to whether they implement a unidirectional or bidirectional communication mechanism, and both mechanisms were known to be available as options before the Priority Date. In determining which of those options to choose, a designer would have regard to a number of factors. One of the most important factors would be the client’s requirements. That is, why, precisely, does the machine need to be connected to an external network? In many cases, the machine manufacturers wanted to obtain analytics data on the usage of the machine, and allow remote reporting of faults. In these circumstances the obvious, and simplest, choice would be a unidirectional communication mechanism. However, for more expensive machines having greater computational capacity and more complicated functionality, it was sometimes seen as advantageous to allow that machine to be remotely programmed. Using a bidirectional communication link carried with it the known risk that an unauthorised person could use that link to reprogram the machine. A number of mechanisms were available to reduce the risk of this occurring (for example, by encrypting messages, limiting the network addresses from which messages could be sent and the like). However, it is difficult to eliminate the risk of intrusion when a bidirectional communications mechanism is in place. It was therefore a question of weighing up whether the risks associated with a bidirectional communication mechanism were worth of the advantages that it brought. Adding to this equation is, as I indicated above, the kind of damage that could be done by somebody who gained access to the device. Where significant damage could be done, and the additional advantages of bidirectionality were not great, a decision could be made to use a unidirectional communication mechanism. However, in circumstances where the amount of damage that could be done was low, and the advantages of remotely programming a device were high, a choice could be made to use a bidirectional communication mechanism.
I should explain in a little bit more detail what I mean by "unidirectional" and "bidirectional". The communications module of the device would necessarily need to both send and receive information in order to establish a communication channel across which information could be communicated. This information would be in the form of control information to set up the communication channel. When I refer to a "unidirectional" communication mechanism, I'm not referring to this part of the communication that is undertaken by the communications module as part of setting up or maintaining a communications channel. More specifically, I am referring to communications that may occur from the control unit of the beverage preparation machine. That is, a unidirectional communications mechanism would involve preventing the control unit of the beverage preparation machine from sending information out of the machine using the communications module. In effect, the unidirectionality would not be a function of the communications module (which may communicate bidirectionally) but would, in fact, be a function of the communications link between the control unit and the communications module. If this is unidirectional, that is, the control unit can only send information out of the communications module, but cannot receive information from the communications module, this is a mechanism for implementing the unidirectional communication I refer to above.”
The Applicant states at paragraph 118 to 120 of their submissions:
“It is only after having discussed these three initial solutions that Mr Lele comes to the passage relied upon by the Opponent. He notes in this respect that the communications module would necessarily need to send and receive information to establish a communication channel with the external network. He therefore refines his unidirectional solution above to state that it does not preclude the sending by the communication module of such control signals to the external network. He notes that in this context it is the control unit which has unidirectional communication with the communications module. At [78] he draws a distinction between substantive information and control information which is part of setting up or maintaining a communication channel. He confirms that when he refers to “unidirectional” he is referring the unidirectionality of user information (solution (4)). This may be represented as follows:
Despite having come up with four possible solutions, it is clear from a proper reading of the claims and Mr Lele’s evidence that he does not nominate, even at solution (4), the invention. Mr Lele contemplates only that ‘control information’ is received by the communications module from the external network. Claim 1 requires that the communication module have a bidirectional communication with an external network, which is not limited to control information. Further Mr Lele also does not contemplate that the user interface would be connected to the communications module so that information received from the external network can be displayed to the user. This is a core aspect of the claimed invention, which can be represented as follows:
Information can be communicated to the user from the external network while at the same time the risk of ‘hacking’ of the control of the machine is minimised. This combination of features is simply not reached by Mr Lele.”
I agree with the Applicant that Mr Lele at paragraphs 76 to 77 does not derive the invention claimed in claim 1. Specifically, Mr Lele finds that the feature of integers 1.3 (a bidirectional communication with an external network) would be obvious, however does not find that the feature of integer 1.4 (a communication user interface to communication module via a bidirectional data communication channel) that interacts with the other claimed integers would be obvious.
I am not satisfied that the invention lacks an inventive step in light of common general knowledge alone.
Obviousness in light of prior art and common general knowledge
The Opponent argues that prior art documents D1, D4, D8, D10, D11, D17, D18, D19 and D20 disclose unidirectional communication coffee machines as defined in integer 1.5 of claim 1.
During the hearing, the Opponent’s submissions focussed on documents D1, D4 and D10 as being the most relevant to disclosing unidirectionally communicating beverage preparation machines defined in integer 1.5 and I will consider these documents in further detail. Since I find (further below) that two of these prior art documents (D4 and D10) disclose unidirectional communication coffee machines it serves little purpose to determine if any of the other documents also disclose this feature.
Unidirectional communication coffee machines
D1 – EP 2 085 000
D1 discloses at figure 1:
The description states at paragraphs 25 to 28:
So configured, the processor 102 is configured and arranged to interact with the sensor 103 to thereby receive information regarding food components as are used by the coffee brewer 101. To continue the example begun above, for instance, this can comprise receiving information regarding a coffee pod being used (or that will be used, or that has been used) by the coffee brewer 101. The processor 102 can then take subsequent actions as a function, at least in part, of this received information.
As noted above, the processor 102 couples to an external network interface 105. This external network interface 105 can comprise, for example, a modem. Various modem technologies are known in the art that are readily applied in this application setting. Some useful non-limiting examples in this regard include a General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) modem, a Bluetooth modem, an 802.11-compatible modem (such as, but not limited to, 802.11 (a), 802.11 (b), 802.11 (g), 802.11 (n), and so forth), a Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN) modem, a power line carrier-based modem (such as an X1 O power line modem), and so forth.
This external network interface 105 is configured and arranged to facilitate interfacing with a remote resource 107 via, for example, an intervening external 20 network 106 (or networks) such as, but not limited to, the Internet. As used herein, the expression "remote resource" will be understood to refer to a resource 107 that is physically discrete from, and greatly geographically removed from, the coffee brewing apparatus 100. This geographic separation may be many miles in length, or even separation as measured by continents and/or oceans.
Pursuant to these teachings, then, the processor 102 is configured and arranged to independently use information regarding food components as are used by the coffee brewer 101 to automatically facilitate obtaining corresponding responsive information from the remote resource 107 and to present that information to an end user via the end user interface 104. As used herein, the reference to "independent" will be understood to refer to a native ability of the processor 102 to effect this functionality without the assistance or control of another household appliance as typifies the prior art in this regard. That is to say, the processor 102 does not require, nor expect, instructions from a co-appliance to effect the described functionality nor does the processor 102 require the presence of such a co-appliance in order to accomplish this functionality.
Although D1 discloses unidirectional communication between components of the coffee machine, this is only between the sensor and the processor. This is in contrast to the present invention where the unidirectional communication is between the processor and the communications module.
D1 does not disclose a unidirectional communication as presently defined in integer 1.5.
D4 – WO 02/23735
Figure 1 of D4 is reproduced below:
The description of D4 states at page 10 line 16 to page 11 line 3:
“Once the data collection portion 52 has obtained the information from the controller 42, it may be used for a variety of applications. The flow rate information, since it is generally a constant ratio relative to the quantity of product dispensed by the product source 34, may provide information relating to ordering of the product. For example, the information provided by the flow meter 44 or device 45 to the controller 42 can be used to record the flow rate, for quantity, time of day, frequency over various periods of time, as well as type of beverage dispensed. For example, the information may be used to develop maintenance schedules, service schedules, product usage tracking (quantity, type, time of day). This information, or selected portions thereof, is valuable business information which may be studied to determine patterns, trends and other analytical information. This information can also be transmitted to or accessed by a supplier 56 on a regular basis as indicated by line 58. Such information can be used to establish a schedule by which an appropriate quantity of product is automatically delivered to the end user to maintain the apparatus based on the historical accumulated information provided by the controller. Communication line 58 may be a two-way communication line such that the data collection portion 52 communicates the ordering requirements to the supplier and the supplier provides confirmation and, perhaps, billing information to the data collection portion 52. The supplier can then provide additional information to the operator of the mixing and dispensing apparatus 40, as well as products as indicated by communication path 60.”
D4 thus discloses unidirectional communication of data from the controller (42) to the modem (50).
D4 is silent as to whether there are transmission control signals being transmitted from the modem (50) to the controller (42). However, it is considered inherent that there would be data transmission signals travelling in both directions between the modem (50) to the controller (42), since without these signals the machine could readily fall into an error state.
I consider that this is a disclosure of a unidirectional communication coffee machine as defined in integer 1.5.
Although there is communication back to the coffee machine this is described as:
“The supplier can then provide additional information to the operator of the mixing and dispensing apparatus 40, as well as products as indicated by communication path 60.”
This communication is via a separate communication channel. The supplier communicates with the operator (and not the machine). This would presumably be through typical communication channels such as phone call or email.
D10 – US 2005/0034606
Figure 3 is reproduced below:
The description of D10 states at paragraph 24 to 28:
“According to FIG. 3, the black boxes 62, 63, 64, 65 are provided with transponders embodied as memories to capture and pass on various data, which can then be read off by means of a reader unit 70, captured and analysed by a computer 100.
The data transfer from the individual transponders via the reader unit 70 to the computer 100 can occur for example via USB connections 80. It can, however, also be conducted from the transponders via corresponding control modules directly over the internet to a service centre or similar where the data can be analysed and reply messages actuated or a service technician can be assigned for repair or maintenance. The computer 100, which can be provided in stationary or portable form, is provided with a computer program to analyse the data, through which the data can be retrieved and analysed using corresponding menus.
Thus for example the black box assigned to the extraction device 20 can record the number of motor activations to drive the brewing cylinder 31 and/or the grinders 22, 23, the number of valve openings of the connecting part 27 for the water connection, or record the replacement of a certain part.
Similarly the black box 65 can monitor and record the individual parts of the hot water and steam supply 50 and their function and also the water consumption for coffee production, tea or similar or steam generation. The black box 63 can register the number of processes for production of milk foam [and] the individual parts can be monitored. With the black box 64, all control processes can be registered.
The data recorded allows optimal maintenance of the coffee machine, as the result of which certain faults can be largely prevented. The lifetime of the individual functional units can thus be considerably increased and the costs of replacement modules reduced. The monitoring and administration of the service works is considerably simplified. Moreover, the data can be statistically recorded and service departments world-wide can be unified. For example, data from a 5-year operation of the coffee machine or data concerning 2.5 million cycles can be captured and statistically analysed.”
D10 thus discloses unidirectional communication of data from the black boxes (62, 63, 64, 65) to the reader unit (70)
D10 is silent as to whether there are transmission control signals being transmitted from the reader unit (70) to the black boxes (62, 63, 64, 65). However, it is considered inherent that there would be data transmission signals travelling in both directions between the reader unit (70) to the black boxes (62, 63, 64, 65), since without these signals the machine could readily fall into an error state.
I am satisfied D10 describes a unidirectional communication coffee machine as defined in integer 1.5.
Summary on unidirectional communication coffee machines
I consider D4 and D10 disclose unidirectional communication beverage preparation machines as presently defined in integer 1.5 of claim 1. D4 and D10 also disclose the features defined in integers 1.1 and 1.2.
D4 and D10 do not disclose integers 1.3 (a bidirectional communication with an external network) or 1.4 (a communication user interface to communication module via a bidirectional data communication channel).
Obviousness
The invention can be thought of as three elements: a unidirectional beverage machine, a bidirectional communication device, and a bidirectional communication interface. I have found that the unidirectional beverage machine is known in D4 and D10. I believe it is uncontroversial for me to assert that bidirectional communication devices (such as modem/routers) and a bidirectional communication interfaces (computers that can browse the internet) were well known at the priority date. Thus each of these three elements of the device were known at the priority date.
Although the invention is essentially a combination of three known devices, this does not necessarily imply that the invention is obvious. At some level all inventions are a combination of known elements. The question is whether, without the benefit of hindsight, there it was a matter of routine to a) select those particular elements and b) combine those elements in a particular way.
The claimed invention has the unidirectional communication beverage machine and the bidirectional communication interface which are both connected to the bidirectional communication device, however there is no communication between the unidirectional beverage machine and the bidirectional communication device.
The evidence does not support the proposition that it would be obvious to select and combine those elements in the manner as claimed. As discussed above, Mr Lele does not arrive at the claimed invention when presented with the problem which the invention seeks to solve.
I am not satisfied that the combination of features would be a matter of routine to a person skilled in the art. Consequently the claims are considered inventive.
Utility legal principles
Section 7A of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) requires that the invention (so far as claimed) is useful. In Ranbaxy Australia Pty Ltd v Warner-LambertCoLLC [2008] FCAFC 82 at [141] it was stated that "the invention as claimed must attain the result promised by the patentee".
In Streetworx Pty Ltd v Artcraft Urban Group Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1366 at [340], Beach J proposed a three-question test when considering utility:
i. What has the patentee promised for the invention as described in the relevant claim?
ii. Is the promise useful?
iii. Has that promise been met?It was also established by the Full Federal Court in H LundbeckAJS v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 70 that:
“A claim is bad if it covers means that will not produce the desired result, even if a skilled person would know which means to avoid. That is to say, everything that is within the scope of a claim must be useful, otherwise the claim will fail for inutility.”
Utility
The Opponent states at paragraph 206 of their submissions:
“The specification states that it is an object of the invention, “to provide a beverage preparation machine that can be connected in a network and that is protected against any upsetting involving a safety issue or a risk of damage or beverage preparation process degradation, and originating from the network, in particular in the form of a virus or other malware”, and “to overcome or ameliorate at least one of the disadvantages of the prior art, or to provide a useful alternative” (p 3 lines 30-37; p 3 lines 39-41). The specific problem addressed by the invention is to protect the control unit of a beverage preparation machine from malicious attack or infection by malware and viruses originating from the external network.
In summary, the invention as claimed in claims 1-10 does not meet the stated object of the invention because the control unit can receive data from the communications module, and limiting the data to “data transmission control signals” does not have the effect of ensuring that the beverage preparation machine is protected against “any upsetting”.”
The Opponent states at paragraph 210 of their submissions:
“Because some information is allowed to flow from the communication module to the control unit, there is a security risk, in that the channel may be manipulated, or information sent down that channel, which will have the unwanted effect of controlling the ingredient processing arrangement (because it would reach the control unit) (Slay 1 [165]). Accordingly, Prof Slay does not consider that the claimed invention would have the effect of preventing the communication module from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement (Slay 1 [165]-[166]) – and Mr Lele agrees (Lele 1 [219], in conjunction with [220]-[221]).”
The Opponent argues that because there is some information travelling back into the coffee machine (the data transmission control signals) there is a chance that hackers could exploit this to control the coffee machine.
The Applicant states in their submissions at paragraphs 176 to 178:
“In the present application, two embodiments are described and illustrated: a first embodiment in which the control unit is connected with the communication module by a unidirectional communication channel (illustrated in Figure 3); and a second embodiment in which the control unit is not connected to the communication module at all (illustrated in Figure 2). It is the first embodiment which is the subject of claim 1. The second embodiment is described as being “an even safer embodiment” and can more accurately be associated with the promise of the first object statement. The purpose of the invention defined in claim 1 can be more accurately associated with the second object: “…to overcome or ameliorate at least one of the disadvantages 40 of the prior art, or to provide a useful alternative”.
In any event, the evidence does not support the proposition that the claimed invention is still subject to “upsetting”. Prof Slay AM discusses unidirectional communication channels in paragraph 76 of Slay 1. Prof Slay AM states that the limitation to ensure that the flow of substantial data such [as] machine parameters is only from the operational device to the terminal device is an implicit security feature. It prevents a party who has gained access to the terminal device from attacking the operational device. Even if the operational device was able to receive instructions from the terminal despite the one-way channel, it would not be configured to interpret or process those instructions. Implicit in such a system is that data transmission signals must be permitted to establish the communication channel. Prof Slay mentions no security issue in this regard.
It is clear that Prof Slay AM does not perceive a remaining security problem where a unidirectional data channel is used. The Opponent’s objection in this regard is not based on any evidence.”
Professor Slay states at (Slay 1) paragraph 165:
“However, in the case of claims 16 and 17, information is allowed to flow from the communication module to the control unit. As indicated above, the nature of that information differs between claims 16 and 17. Nevertheless, the presence in claims 16 and 17 of a communication channel that allows information to flow from the communication module to the control unit means that there is a security risk, in that the channel may be manipulated, or information sent down that channel, which will have the unwanted effect of controlling the ingredient processing arrangement (because it would reach the control unit). Accordingly, I do not consider that claims 16 and 17 would have the effect of preventing the communication module from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement.”
Mr Lele states at (Lele 1) paragraphs 219 and 220:
“Furthermore, claim 16 suggests that the communication module is prevented from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement. I do not consider that this result will be achieved with the arrangement prescribed by the rest of the claim. I say this because if there is a channel allowing information to flow between the communications module and the control unit, this channel may be exploited to enable the communication module to control the ingredient processing arrangement. Furthermore, even if the communications between the communication module and control unit were governed by a modified protocol of some description, there would still need to be a channel of communication flowing from the communication module to the control unit, and an attacker could modify or exploit the protocol to send controlling instructions from the communication module to the control unit.
Claim 17 is in substantially the same terms as claim 16. Accordingly, it shares the problems of claim 16 referred to above. The difference in terms between claim 16 and claim 17 appears to be in how the information that is sent from the communication module to the control unit is described. In claim 16, the "exception" to the unidirectional data communication channel is expressed as being "a request for information and signals necessary to ensure proper communication". However, in claim 17 this "exception" is expressed as being "data transmission control signals". Bearing in mind that the "exception" must, in my view, be implemented by means of a separate channel to the unidirectional data communication channel, the difference in language between claim 16 and claim 17 appears to me to be without a meaningful difference. In both cases, what is being sent are messages and signals which prompt and control the flow of information down the unidirectional data communication channel.”
I accept that Professor Slay and Mr Lele believe that hacking of the beverage preparation machine is possible. However, I consider the promise of the invention of being “protected against any upsetting” is not a guarantee of the impossibility of hacking. The Applicant notes that the description of an embodiment of an invention (not covered by the current claims) is “an even safer embodiment”, thus implying that the presently claimed invention is not perfectly safe. I consider the promise of the invention to be in reducing of the risk of hacking.
The unidirectional nature of the data communication (except for data transmission control signals) makes it significantly more difficult to hack the coffee machine than if the communication was bidirectional. Thus I consider the unidirectional nature of the communication minimises the risk of hacking and meets the promise of the invention. Consequently, the claimed invention is useful.
Disclosure legal principles
Section 40(2)(a) of the Act provides that a complete patent specification must “disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the relevant art”.
The application of the current section 40(2)(a) is yet to be considered by an Australian court. However, a Delegate of the Commissioner for Patents took an approach consistent with the UK authorities in CSR Building Products Limited v United States Gypsum Company [2015] APO 72. In that decision, the Delegate summarised the relevant question as follows:
“Can the skilled person readily perform the invention over the whole area claimed without undue burden and without needing inventive skill?”
To answer this question, the Delegate adopted a three-step approach:
i)construe the claims to determine the scope of invention as claimed,
ii)construe the description to determine what it discloses to the person skilled in the art, and
iii)decide whether the specification provides an enabling disclosure of all the things that fall within the scope of the claims.
Disclosure
The Opponent states at paragraph 226 of their submissions:
“The Opponent relies on two features that the specification does not sufficiently describe in a manner that would enable the person skilled in the art at the Priority Date to perform the invention without undue burden or the application of inventive skill. The first is how a control unit can be prevented from accepting beverage preparation-related or service process-related control data from a communication module, as claimed in claims 1 to 10. The second is how a control unit can be arranged to communicate data to a communication module via a unidirectional data communication channel, such that, with the exception of data transmission control signals, the control unit does not receive any data from the communication module, as claimed in claims 1 to 10.”
Although the Opponent has argued that there are two distinct aspects of the invention that are not sufficiently described, I consider that these two aspects are interrelated and there is essentially one issue to be considered: how is the control unit prevented from accepting data?
How is the control unit prevented from accepting data?
The Opponent states at paragraph 228:
“By integer 1.5, claim 1 includes in its scope a beverage preparation machine in which, inter alia, the control unit is prevented from accepting beverage preparation-related or service process-related control data from the communication module. Claims 2 to 10 are dependent on claim 1, and none of them adds anything that affects or limits this integer.
The specification does not disclose how this can be done. This integer is mentioned at p 5 line 37 to p 6 line 2 and p 15 lines 25 to 27, but there is no disclosure of how to effect it.”
The description states at page 5 line 37 to p 6 line 2:
“Typically, the control unit is prevented from accepting beverage preparation-related or service process-related control data from the communication module. In particular, the control unit is prevented from accepting any reconfiguration-related data or any data extending beyond a request for data in a unidirectional communication with the communication module.”
The description states at page 15 lines 25 to 27:
“Control unit 21 is prevented from accepting beverage preparation-related control data from communication module 11.”
Further detail of how the control unit is prevented from accepting beverage preparation-related control data is not provided.
Professor Slay suggests that a ‘data diode’ could be used as an ‘elegant solution’ to preventing beverage preparation-related control data at (Slay 1) paragraph 82:
“I consider the use of a data diode, positioned at the communications port of the beverage machine, to be an elegant solution, particularly because it enables the beverage preparation machine to send information of any desired complexity, without risking the opening of a back channel by which an adversary could control the beverage preparation machine.”
A data diode positioned at the communication port would need to be software based since the incoming and outgoing communication with the external network (internet) is in the form of ‘packets’. These packets are a string of bits that contain both control information and data. The software data diode would parse the information contained in the packets and then be able to prevent the packets containing data from passing through to the communication module.
Professor Slay discusses the complexity of a software data diode at (Slay 1) paragraph 85:
“In developing a modified data diode, which, as I indicated above, had been developed before 2009, the effort it would take to create such a data diode from scratch in software would not be terribly great. When I and my students developed a software only data diode, it took approximately three months and constituted approximately 80,000 lines of code. Modifying such a software only data diode to allow a limited number of messages to travel backwards through the diode would be of a similar order of magnitude, if not less.”
I have illustrated a software data diode at the communications port:
I consider that a software data diode at the communication port would only be suitable for a unidirectional communication coffee machine with no bidirectional communication requirement. However, the claimed invention also has the communication user-interface connected to the communications module via a bidirectional data communication channel (integer 1.4). Thus a software data diode at the communication port would not be suitable for the claimed invention.
Instead the data diode would need to be between the communication module and the control unit. I have illustrated this configuration as follows:
Because the data travelling between the control unit and the communication module does not need to be constrained to just two channels, a data bus with multiple wires (channels) would be used since it makes communication between components of a device much simpler. The data bus (which is considered ubiquitous in the art) would have data transmission wires as well as control signal wires.
A physical data diode can be used where the transmission control signals are on a physically separate wires than the data signals (i.e. a data bus). An illustration of a physical data diode is provided in the paper “Data Diodes” by M. Stevens and M. Pope (which is exhibit JS-11 of Professor Slays first declaration) at figure 2:
The data diode between the communication module and the control unit would simply be an absence of the wire that transmits data from the communication module to the control unit. A person skilled in the art could be reasonably expected to know of such a data diode.
I am satisfied that the specification, when understood in light of the common general knowledge, provides an adequate disclosure to a person skilled in the art of the unidirectional communication aspect of the invention.
Support legal principles
Section 40(3) of the Act requires that the claims of a patent must be supported by matter disclosed in the specification. This requirement can be summarised as requiring the scope of the claims to correspond to the technical contribution to the art.
100. In Merial, Inc v Bayer New Zealand Limited [2018] APO 14 the Delegate summarized the new support requirement as follows:
“The requirement of support can be summarised as the scope of the claims “should correspond to the technical contribution to the art”.”
Support
101. The Opponent states at paragraph 275 of their submissions:
“This ground is similar to the utility ground discussed in paragraphs 206 to 212 above. The specification refers to this requirement (for example, at p 4 lines 8 to 10 and at p 5 lines 3 to 5). It describes the types of interferences from the communication module that are prevented (see, eg, p 5 lines 9-12), and the results of the prevention (see, eg, p 5 lines 12-36). However, it does not explain how the prevention is to be implemented. It does say there is to be a unidirectional communication channel between the communication module and the control unit (see, eg, p 15 lines 28-30) – but Prof Slay’s evidence is that such a mechanism would not have this effect (Slay 1 [165]-[166]), and Mr Lele agrees (Lele 1 [219], in conjunction with [220]-[221]). Prof Slay says that it is not clear to her from reading the specification, and would not have been clear to her at the Priority Date, precisely how the aim of preventing the communication module from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement is to be achieved (Slay 1 [154]).”
102. Professor Slay states at (Slay 1) paragraph 154:
“Although I understand conceptually how claims 1, 12 and 15 are intended to achieve their aim of preventing the communication module from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement, it is not clear to me, and would not have been clear to me at September 2009, precisely how this is to be achieved. For example, is not clear to me how a communication module may be configured to only send to a control unit a request for data, or signals that control data transmission. More particularly, however, it is not clear to me from reading this document how a control unit can be prevented from accepting certain data in a mode of operation where that data is sent to it by the communications unit. For the control unit to be able to act, or not act, on certain data, it must first accept this data and then classify it to determine whether the data is of the prohibited type. I am unaware of any mechanisms by which the control unit can be prevented from accepting certain types of data transmitted to it from the communications unit without some kind of intermediate filter. It seems to me that, in this case, the control unit must in fact at least accept the data in order to determine whether to process it, or otherwise take any further action.”
103. The Applicant states at paragraph 211 and 212 of their submissions:
“The Opponent claims that the feature of claim 1 requiring that the communication module is prevented from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement is not supported because it is alleged that it not clear how or whether the communication module is prevented from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement.
In the first instance, the claims are limited to machines in which this functionality is achieved. If the communication module is not prevented from controlling the ingredient processing arrangement, then the machine will not fall within the scope of the claims. The claims cannot exceed the technical contribution to the art on this basis.”
104. I have found that the unidirectional communication aspect of the invention is fully described. I have also found that the unidirectional nature of that communication fulfils the promise that it minimises the risk of hacking. I consider that the unidirectional communication of the coffee machine (when in combination with the bidirectional communication device and a bidirectional communication interface) is the technical contribution to the art. I further consider the claims to correspond with, and thus are supported by, this technical contribution to the art. Consequently I am satisfied that the claimed invention is supported by the description.
Clarity legal principles
105. The rules of construction for an Australian patent specification are well summarized in Decor Corp v Dart Industries 13 IPR 385. Recently the correct application of these rules to the construction of claims was discussed by Bennett J in H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 70; 81 IPR 228 at [118] – [120]:
“the words in a claim should be read through the eyes of the skilled addressee in the context in which they appear ... while the claims define the monopoly claimed in the words of the patentee's choosing, the specification should be read as a whole ... it is not permissible to read into a claim an additional integer or limitation to vary or qualify the claim by reference to the body of the specification ... terms in the claim which are unclear may be defined or clarified by reference to the body of the specification.”
106. Where it is impossible to ascertain the scope of invention the claims should be found to lack clarity (see Decor Corp v Dart Industries 13 IPR 385 at 400).
Clarity
Data transmission control signals
107. The Opponent states in their submissions at paragraphs 249-252:
“Claim 1 lacks clarity. It includes, inter alia, a control unit being arranged to communicate data to the communication module via a unidirectional data communication channel such that, with the exception of data transmission control signals, the control unit does not receive any data from the communication module.
The phrase “data transmission control signals” renders the claim unclear, because it is not possible for the skilled addressee to understand precisely what constitutes the “data transmission control signals” in the context of the invention as disclosed in the specification.
Prof Slay says she considers the reference to “data transmission control signals” to be a reference to signals which, when received by the control unit, will operate to cause the control unit to either stop or start the transmission of data down the unidirectional data communication channel to the communication module (Slay 1 [162]). However, the precise nature of those signals will depend on the protocol used to communicate between the communication module and the control unit; and Prof Slay says the specification does not provide any information as to the protocol. Accordingly, Prof Slay does not know the precise content and nature of the transmission control signals referred to in claim 1 (Slay 1 [163]).
Thus, the skilled addressee of the specification, while having a broad understanding of the term “data transmission control signals”, would not understand sufficiently what was meant by it in the context of the specification to understand exactly what signals are included in and excluded from claim 1. The reader could not ascertain whether a particular type of signal fell within the scope of the claim.”
108. The Applicant states in their submissions at paragraphs 188 to 190:
“The Opponent alleges that the phrase “data transmission control signals” is unclear.
The Opponent’s expert witness Mr Lele clearly explained the operation of control signals in his description of a unidirectional communication channel and how the control signals would be required to be sent in the reverse direction in order to establish the unidirectional communication channel. In these paragraphs, Mr Lele does not refer to the signals specifically as being “data transmission control signals” but refers to similar terms like “signals that control data transmission”. Thus, it is apparent that Mr Lele understands these terms.
Prof Slay AM considers the reference to “data transmission control signals” to be a reference to signals which, when received by the control unit, will operate to cause the control unit to either stop or start the transmission of data down the unidirectional data communication channel to the communication module. Prof Slay AM goes on to indicate that the precise nature of these signals will depend on the communication protocol used. However this does not in any way suggest that it is not possible to determine whether information comprises such signals or not. The claim clearly delineates signals that control the transmission of data along the unidirectional communication channel (and both Opponent’s expert witnesses understand these) from data that is to be transmitted along the communication channel such as “beverage preparation-related” or “service process-related” control data.”
109. The Opponent states at paragraph 230 of their submissions:
“Mr Lele explains what these types of data are at Lele 1 [213]. Beverage preparation related control data primarily relates to parameters used to control the arrangement for processing one or more beverage ingredients to affect how the ingredients are processed. Service process related control data is data that relates to the requirement or need for part or all of the beverage preparation machine to undergo some kind of servicing.”
110. The description states at page 15 lines 28 to 34:
“In the architecture of Figure 3, the control unit 21 is arranged to communicate data to communication module 11 via unidirectional data communication channel 211. With the exception of a request for information and the signals necessary to ensure proper communication, e.g. data transmission control signals, control unit 21 will not receive any data from communication module 11.”
111. I consider it clear from the specification that the ‘data transmission control signals’ are the signals necessary to ensure proper communication of data. The experts do not appear to have any difficulty understanding the meaning of this term. Consequently, I am satisfied that the term ‘data transmission control signals’ is clear.
Sensors unconnected to the communication module
112. The Opponent states in their submissions at paragraph 257 and 259:
“Thus, the specification contemplates that the sensors will be directly connected to the communication module, and that they will be completely cut off from the communication module. However, it also contemplates that the sensors send information to the communication module through the control unit. It is this configuration that makes the claim unclear. The reader would not know whether this last configuration was within or outside of the scope of the claim.
...
Claim 1 requires the sensors to send info to the control unit (integer 1.2), and it requires information to be sent from the control unit to the communication channel. If the sensors are completely isolated from the communication channel, one or other of those links is missing. So claim 3, dependent on claim 1, must refer to a machine where the sensors are indirectly connected to the communications unit. But that configuration is already present in claim 1. This illustrates the lack of clarity in claim 3.”
113. The Applicant states in their submissions at paragraphs 192-194:
“The Opponent alleges that it is not clear whether “unconnected” as used in claim 3 includes sensors which are connected to the control unit and therefore indirectly connected to the communication module.
As is pointed out by the Opponent, the specification makes clear that the communication module can be directly connected to the sensors, usually in parallel to the control unit, or indirectly connected via the control unit (p7, lines 1-8).
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1 which requires that the control unit be connected to the sensors and that the control unit be connected to the communication module. In context therefore, it is clear that claim 3 must allow the communications module to be indirectly connected to the sensors via the control unit. Otherwise all of the integers of claim 3 (including those of claim 1) could not be simultaneously satisfied. It is clear therefore that “unconnected” means that there is no direct connection between the sensors and the communication module.”
114. In the context of the description and the drawings, it is readily apparent the feature of “sensors are unconnected to the communication module” is referring to the unidirectional data communication channel (411) being removed from Figure 3.
115. As noted by the Opponent, this means that the sensors are only indirectly connected to the communication module via the control unit (21). Thus the feature can be readily understood to mean the sensors are not directly connected to the communication module.
116. I am satisfied that the ‘sensors unconnected to the communication module’ is clear.
Conclusion
117. The opposition fails on all grounds raised in this opposition. Subject to appeal, I direct the application proceed to grant.
Costs
118. Costs typically follow the event, however a variation of costs can be made to reflect actions of parties during the opposition.
119. By amending the specification during the opposition the Applicant essentially concedes that the application was not valid before that amendment. Thus the Opponent was correct to oppose the application up until the point in time when the amendments were allowed.
120. Thus, I awards costs against the Applicant up to the day when the amendments to the specification were allowed (23 February 2018) and I award costs against the Opponent from the day after the allowance of the amendments (24 February 2018).
Xavier Gisz
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
0
10
0