Safran Electronics & Defense

Safran Electronics & Defense (ACN 164 206 065) filed a patent application for an aiming system comprising a control zone and a virtual joystick for a touch interface. The application faced an objection from the examiner regarding the novelty and inventive step under section 18(1)(b) of the Patents Act. The dispute was heard in the Australian Patents Office. The central legal issues involved whether the claimed invention was novel and possessed an inventive step over the prior art.

The court had to decide whether the invention was novel and had an inventive step, considering the prior art. It was established that the invention involved a control zone and a virtual joystick for a touch interface aiming system. The court examined whether the combination of prior art references could lead to the claimed invention. The key issue was whether the prior art references, individually or in combination, disclosed or suggested the claimed invention. The court also considered what constituted common general knowledge and whether there was a motivation to combine the prior art.

After careful consideration, the court found that the combination of prior art did not teach away from the claimed invention. It was concluded that the invention was novel and had an inventive step over the prior art. The court found that there was no motivation to combine the prior art disclosures to arrive at the claimed invention. Therefore, the claims were held to be both novel and inventive. The application was directed to proceed to acceptance as no other grounds of objection applied.