Title:Aiming system comprising a screen covered with a tactile interface and corresponding aiming method
Patent Applicant: Safran Electronics & Defense
Delegate: Isaac Tan
Decision Date: 11 April 2019
Hearing Date: 15 March 2019 by written submissions.
Catchwords: PATENTS – section 45 – examiner objection hearing – computer implemented invention – touch interface – aiming system comprising a control zone – virtual joystick – novelty and inventive step under section 18(1)(b) – combination of prior art considered – claims are novel and inventive – consideration of what constitutes common general knowledge – no motivation to combine disclosure of prior art – application directed to proceed to acceptance
Representation: Andrew Cale, Patent Attorney of Spruson & Ferguson
Edward Quinn, Patent Attorney of Spruson & Ferguson
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2016271694
Title:Aiming system comprising a screen covered with a tactile interface and corresponding aiming method
Patent Applicant: Safran Electronics & Defense
Date of Decision: 11 April 2019
DECISION
All of the claims are novel and have an inventive step.
I direct that the application be accepted.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Safran Electronics & Defense (Applicant) filed Australian patent application 2016271694 (application) as international application PCT/EP2016/062308 filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) with an international filing date of 31 May 2016 and claiming a priority date of 1 June 2015.
On 27 November 2017, Fisher Adams Kelly Callinans, which was the firm representing the Applicant at the time, requested expedited examination under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), based on claims considered allowable by the European Patent Office (EPO) in the International Preliminary Report on Patentability Chapter 1 (IPRP1).
The application has been subjected to four (4) examination reports respectively dated 19 January 2018, 10 August 2018, 30 October 2018, and 14 January 2019. In response to the examination report of 30 October 2018, the Applicant proposed amendments on 8 January 2019 which requested that all the claims presently on file be deleted and replaced with a new set of 8 claims. On 18 January 2019, one day before the final date of acceptance, the Applicant requested to be heard.
In response to the request to be heard, the Applicant was invited to provide written submissions. The Applicant’s written submissions was filed on 15 March 2019.
Applicable Law
The application was filed after 15 April 2013 and is governed by the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) and Patents Regulations1991 (the Regulations) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012 (Raising the Bar). Amendments to sections 7, 40 and 49 of the Act apply to the present case as a consequence of Schedule 1, items 55(1)(d) and 55(4)(a), and Schedule 6, item 133(7)(d) of the Raising the Bar Act.
Thus the standard of proof that applies in the present case is the balance…
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 Safran Electronics & Defense
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Safran Electronics & Defense [2019] APO 17
Case
[2019] APO 17
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case involved a dispute between Safran Electronics & Defense and the Commissioner for Patents. The applicant sought a review of the Commissioner's decision to object to the grant of a patent for a computer-implemented invention related to a touch interface aiming system. The dispute was heard by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.
The central legal issues in the case revolved around the novelty and inventive step of the claimed invention under section 18(1)(b) of the Patents Act 1990. The Commissioner had objected to the patent on the grounds that the invention was not novel or inventive over the prior art. The applicant argued that the combination of prior art relied upon by the Commissioner did not provide a motivation to combine, and that the claims were both novel and inventive.
The court considered the relevant prior art and the applicant's arguments, ultimately finding that the combination of prior art relied upon by the Commissioner did not provide a motivation to combine. The court held that the claimed invention was both novel and inventive, and therefore entitled to patent protection. The court found that the applicant had demonstrated that the claimed invention involved a combination of features that were not disclosed or suggested by the prior art, and that the invention involved an inventive step that was not obvious to a person skilled in the relevant art.
As a result of the court's decision, the examiner was directed to proceed with the acceptance of the patent application. The applicant's claims were found to be novel and inventive, and the objection to the grant of the patent was dismissed. The court's decision provides guidance on the assessment of novelty and inventive step in the context of computer-implemented inventions, and the importance of considering what constitutes common general knowledge in this area.