Paradise Motor Homes Pty Ltd - [2013] APO 39

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Paradise Motor Homes Pty Ltd [2013] APO 39

Patent Application: 2005244571
Title:Automatic locking apparatus

Patent Applicant:  Paradise Motor Homes Pty Ltd
Delegate:  Xavier Gisz
Decision Date:  2 July 2013
Hearing Date:  27 May 2013, by telephone
Catchwords:  PATENTS - examiner objection – claims 20, 23 and 24 lack novelty – claims 1, 9-11, 14, 17-20 and 23-25 lack of inventive step – opportunity to amend

Representation: Patent applicant: Wayne Slater of IP Gateway Patent and Trademark

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2005244571

Title:Automatic locking apparatus

Patent Applicant: Paradise Motor Homes Pty Ltd
Date of Decision: 2 July 2013
DECISION
Claims 20, 23 and 24 lack novelty. Claims 1, 9-11, 14, 17-20, 23-25 lack an inventive step.
The Applicant has the remaining time under s 142(2)(e), i.e. until 6 September 2013, to propose amendments that are consistent with this decision.
REASONS FOR DECISION

This matter concerns examiner’s objections and whether I should exercise the Commissioner’s power to refuse the application under subsection 49(2) of the Patents Act 1990.
Background
Application 2005244571 was filed on 16 December 2005 in the name of Paradise Motor Homes Pty Ltd (the Applicant). It was filed as a divisional of Australian patent application 2005205770 and derives its priority date of 17 December 2004 from provisional application 2004907179.
Examination reports on this application were issued on 6 December 2011, 22 August 2012 and 8 March 2013. Responses to the examination reports were received on 27 July 2012 and 6 March 2013, each response was accompanied by proposed amendments.
In the second report (dated 22 August 2012), the examiner raised an inventive step objection based on prior art patent US 6,793,260 B2 (CREAN) 21 September 2004 (D4). In the third report (dated 8 March 2013) the examiner maintained the inventive step objection to the proposed amendments on the basis of the Crean citation.
On 21 March 2013 the applicant requested the matter be heard. The hearing took place on 27 May 2013 by telephone. The Applicant was represented by Wayne Slater of IP Gateway Patent and Trademark and was accompanied by the inventor, Colin MacLean.
The specification
The invention relates to a central locking system for locking the internal cabinet doors and drawers in the interior space of a motor home.
The specification, as provided in the most recent proposed amendments, concludes with 27 claims including four independent claims. The independent claims are reproduced below:
1. A method of securing articles stowed within cabinet type fittings within an interior living space of a motor home, the cabinet type fittings having a cabinet frame and cabinet doors or drawers mounted on the cabinet frame or providing access to cabinet interiors within the cabinet type fittings, the method including:
locking the cabinet doors and/or drawers in a closed position using a central locking apparatus when the motor home is travelling on the road in a travelling mode to hold the doors and/or drawers against moving to an open position due to changes in…

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 Paradise Motor Homes Pty Ltd 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: [2013] APO 39
Decision Date: 2 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of an objection by the examiner of a patent application, Paradise Motor Homes Pty Ltd sought to have an invention patented. The invention related to a locking system for locking the internal cabinet doors and drawers in the interior space of a motor home. The application was objected to by the examiner on the basis that some claims were not novel and that others did not involve an inventive step. The applicant sought to have the objections overturned. The court had to decide whether the examiner's objections were justified. The court found that some of the claims were not novel and did not involve an inventive step. The applicant had until 6 September 2013 to propose amendments that were consistent with this decision.

Orders