Rogers v Commissioner of Patents

The appellant, Rogers, sought a patent for a device designed to burn standing timber. The Commissioner of Patents refused the application on the grounds that the subject matter was not a "manner of new manufacture" as required by the *Patents Act 1903* (Cth). This appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant's invention, a method for creating a self-feeding fire to burn standing timber using a log supported by forked sticks and gravity, constituted a "manner of new manufacture" within the meaning of section 4 of the *Patents Act 1903*. This required the Court to consider the scope and interpretation of this statutory phrase, particularly in relation to processes, methods, and the production of vendible articles.

Griffith C.J. and O'Connor J. held that the invention was not a manner of new manufacture. They reasoned that the device was merely a working direction for applying the law of gravity to keep two burning objects in contact, and did not involve a new appliance or a modification of existing ones in a way that would qualify as a manufacture. They emphasised that a patentable invention must produce a tangible result or involve a new mechanical contrivance, and that a mere idea or a new method of arranging materials for an old purpose, without producing a vendible article or a new process carried out by novel means, was insufficient. Isaacs J., dissenting, argued that the Commissioner had wrongly declined jurisdiction by refusing to consider the application on its merits. He contended that the invention was a new method of producing an old result, involving ingenuity and practical utility, and that the requirement of producing a vendible article was not a prerequisite for patentability.

The majority of the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Commissioner's decision that the invention did not fall within the definition of a patentable "manner of new manufacture." Isaacs J. would have remitted the application back to the Commissioner for consideration of the statutory requirements, including novelty and utility.