A claim for computer processing apparatus programmed to produce a useful result in a field of economic endeavour constitutes a manner of manufacture under s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth), provided the claim surmounts the separate hurdles of novelty, inventive step, utility and compliance with s 40. The Australian legislature's deliberate choice not to follow the British/European exclusion of computer programs means that pre-1977 UK decisions applying NRDC principles are the most pertinent foreign authority. For fair basing, the comparison required by the statute is between the claim and the matter disclosed in the earlier specification, not between the specifications themselves, and there must be a 'real and reasonably clear disclosure' of the invention as claimed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 61 later cases that cite this judgment.
9 of the 61 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.