RYW Holdings Pty Ltd - [2023] APO 62

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
RYW Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] APO 62

Patent Application: 2019284145

Title:Waste management and processing system

Patent Applicant:                   RYW Holdings Pty Ltd
Delegate:  Dr V. Z. Kolev
Decision Date:  8 December 2023
Hearing Date:  Written submissions filed on 24 November 2022

Catchwords: PATENTS – sections 45 and 49 – examiner’s objection – inventive step – waste management – compostable and non-compostable waste streams – waste sorting and decontamination before compaction – collecting data during waste decontamination – tracking waste source – generation of biological compost from compostable waste – curing in stackable aeration crates – the claimed invention does not involve an inventive step – application refused
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Wallington-Dummer

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application:                 2019284145
Title:  Waste management and processing system
Patent Applicant:  RYW Holdings Pty Ltd
Date of Decision:  8 December 2023
DECISION
The application does not involve an inventive step in light of the common general knowledge considered together with prior art document US 2013/0297518 A1 (WMS METAL INDUSTRIES LLC) published on 7 November 2013.
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION

Throughout this decision, unless explicitly stated otherwise, any reference to the Act, or to a specific section or subsection, refers to the Patents Act 1990, and any reference to the Regulations, or to a specific regulation or subregulation, refers to the Patents Regulations 1991. In addition, any reference to the Commissioner refers to the Commissioner of Patents as per the Act, and any reference to a Delegate refers to a Delegate of the Commissioner.
Background
The matter relates to patent application 2019284145 (the Application) in the name of RYW Holdings Pty Ltd (the Applicant). The Application was filed on 30 December 2019 and claims priority from provisional application 2019903072. The earliest claimed priority date is 22 August 2019.
A request for expedited examination was filed together with the Application on 30 December 2019. Four examination reports raising various objections were issued in the period from 30 March 2020 to 20 April 2021. In response to each examination report, the Applicant filed arguments and proposed amendments to the specification of the Application (the Specification).
Examination report No. 5 was issued on 29 June 2021, and contained objections that the proposed amendments were not allowable, and that the clamed invention was not a manner of manufacture and did not involve an inventive step. On the same date, the Applicant requested to be heard.
The hearing was conducted by way of written submissions, which were filed by the Applicant on 18 October 2021, together with a new set of proposed amendments. Following an invitation by a Delegate, the Applicant filed, on 23 December 2021 and 12 January 2022, additional submissions in relation to manner of manufacture in light of a recently delivered relevant Court decision.
A hearing decision issued on 25 March 2022, namely RYW Holdings Pty Ltd [2022] APO 20 (the Previous Decision or PD), in which…

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.

Continue reading RYW Holdings Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: RYW Holdings Pty Ltd [2023] APO 62
Case: [2023] APO 62
Decision Date: 8 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, RYW Holdings Pty Ltd, filed a patent application for a waste management and processing system. The patent examiner issued multiple examination reports raising objections, including that the claimed invention did not involve an inventive step. After a previous decision by a delegate of the Commissioner found that the invention was not obvious in light of certain prior art documents and common general knowledge, the examiner continued to maintain the inventive step objection based on the common general knowledge and another prior art document. The Applicant requested a hearing on the objection. The delegate found that the claimed invention was obvious in light of the common general knowledge and the prior art document. The delegate noted that the common general knowledge included composting in stackable aeration crates and monitoring of temperature, moisture and microbiology content during the curing process. The delegate also found that the Applicant did not provide a convincing argument that the claimed invention involved an inventive step. The delegate refused the application.

Orders