The decision of the Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents in Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Wm. Wrigley Jr Company [2008] APO 20 provides an interesting counterpoint to the decision of Gyles J in Apotex v Sanofi-Aventis.
The claims of the opposed application related to a method of coating comestibles (principally chewing gum), which included the application of a suspension coating syrup, (a “suspension coating method”) rather than a solution coating syrup, (a “solution coating method”). Each of the suspension and solution coating methods were know to have various advantages and disadvantages.
Under the ground of novelty, the Opponent relied, inter alia, on two documents identified as DA3 and DA8, which were technical application sheets produced by the manufacture of the sugar derivative Isomalt used to produce the coating syrup. In assessing whether these documents anticipated the claims of the application, the Delegate noted that:
Both documents have very specific directions about how to make a suspension of Isomalt ST in an Isomalt GS solution. However, there is little detail of how this suspension is then used in a coating process in either document apart from a table outlining general process parameters … Without such detail, it is not clear that either DA3 and DA8 contains sufficient information to meet the Hill v Evans [supra] test of being the same as the claimed invention for the purposes of “practical utility”.
The Delegate considered whether, assuming the skilled worker could supply the missing detail, the documents otherwise anticipate the claims. It was noted that while each of the documents were individual recipes, they formed part of a larger technical document supplied by the manufacture to its customers. In the Delegates view:
Being part of a larger collection of recipes, DA3 and DA8 have to be read in the context of all the other technical application sheets because considering them in isolation might be seen as rummaging through the prior art’s “flag locker” to pull out the relevant “flag” (against the teaching of ICI Chemicals v Lubrizol Corp [supra]).
In this regard, while DA3 and DA8 both outline the suspension method, another Palatinit technical application sheet (Technical Application sheet 3.5.2b) describes an alternative method (the solution method).
The Delegate considered that having regard to the entire collection of technical application sheets, at the relevant date “the manufacturer was not necessarily recommending the suspension method to their clients”, concluding that:
Against this background unless there was a clear direction in the citation (or from the common general knowledge) to explain why a method was particularly advantageous, I am not convinced that there are clear and unmistakeable directions for the skilled worker to use the exact method outlined in DA3 or DA8.