Brown & Watson International P_L v The NOCO Company

Australian Patent Oﬀice

Brown & Watson �nternational P/L v The NOCO Company [��] APO �� (� July ��)

Last Updated: � July ��

�P AUSTRAL�A

AUSTRAL�AN PATENT OFF�CE

Brown & Watson �nternational P/L v The NOCO Company [��] APO ��

Patent Applications: �� & ��

Title: Portable vehicle battery jump start apparatus with safety protection

Patent Applicant: The NOCO Company

Opponent: Brown & Watson �nternational P/L

Delegate: S. E. Howard

Decision Date: � July ��

st

nd

Hearing Date: �� -�� April ��, video conference

Catchwords: PATENTS – opposition to the grant of patent – s �� – utility – clear enough and complete enough disclosure – clarity –

clear claims – lack of support – priority date of the claims – novelty – implicit disclosure – inventive step – opposition unsuccessful

on all grounds

Representation: Counsel for the applicant: �an Horak

Patent attorney for the applicant: Ray Tettman from Griﬀith Hack

Counsel for the opponent: Sam Hallahan

Patent attorney for the opponent: Adrian Crooks from Phillips Ormonde Fitzpatrick

�P AUSTRAL�A

AUSTRAL�AN PATENT OFF�CE

Patent Applications: �� & ��

Title: Portable vehicle battery jump start apparatus with safety protection

Patent Applicant: The NOCO Company

Date of Decision: � July ��

DEC�S�ON

Under regulation �.��, for the purposes of deciding the opposition, � will consult the declaration by Cheng (Claire) Wang dated the

th

�� of August ��.

The oppositions against applications �� and �� are unsuccessful. Subject to appeal, � direct these applications

proceed to grant.

�n respect of each of the oppositions against applications �� and ��, costs in accordance with Schedule � are

awarded against the opponent Brown & Watson �nternational P/L.

REASONS FOR DEC�S�ON

BACKGROUND

�. This matter relates to patent application �� (AU��) and its divisional application �� (AU��), filed in the

th

name of The NOCO Company (the Applicant) on the � of March �� and the �� of February �� respectively. AU�� is a

divisional application from �� (parent application) which is in turn a divisional from �� (grandparent

rd

application) which further claims priority from PCT/US��/�� with a priority date of � of July ��.

Application AU��

st

�. Application AU�� was accepted on the � of November ��. On the �� of February ��, Brown & Watson �nternational Pty

Ltd (the Opponent) filed a notice of opposition to the grant of application AU�� under s�� of the Act (the AU�� opposition).

st

th

�. A Statement of Grounds and Particular was filed on the �� of May �� (AU�� SGP). On the �� of July ��, the Opponent

st

filed a request to extend the time to file the Evidence in Support (AU�� E�S) until the �� of November �� under Regulation

th

�.�(�), the request was allowed on the �� of July ��. The Opponent filed the AU�� E�S on the �� of November. The

th

Applicant filed the Evidence in Answer (AU�� E�A) on the �� of February ��. Evidence in Reply (AU�� E�R) was filed on the

th

�� of April ��.

th

�. The Applicant filed further evidence under Regulation �.�� on the �� of May �� directed to contradictions in the English

translations of CN�� filed with the AU�� E�S and the AU�� E�R. This evidence included a declaration from Cheng (Claire)

st

Wang (Wang) dated the �� of May �� with supporting annexure WC-�, a verified English translation prepared by Ms Wang and

th

the original version of CN �� U. On the �� of June ��, the parties were advised that the Commissioner would consult

these documents under Regulation �.��.

th

�. The Opponent filed further evidence, pursuant to Regulation �.��(�), on the �� of July �� in response to the evidence filed

by the Applicant. This included a declaration from Guangming Lui (Lui) with supporting annexures GL-� to GL-� and a declaration

th

from Cory Seligman (Seligman�) dated �� of June �� as filed in the AU�� opposition. The Commissioner wrote to the

th

Opponent on the � of August �� stating that the Seligman declaration does not fall within Regulation �.��(�) and that the

Commissioner should not have regard to it in deciding the opposition.

th

�. On the �� of August ��, the Applicant provided a second declaration by Ms Wang (Wang�) dated the �� of August ��. The

th

Commissioner responded on the �� of August ��, saying there was insuﬀicient reasoning to invoke Regulation �.�� in relation

to Wang�.

Application AU��

th

�. Application AU�� was accepted on the �� of April �� a�er one examination report that outlined a postponement of

th

acceptance as the only outstanding issue. On the � of August ��, the Opponent filed a notice of opposition to the grant of

th

application AU��. A Statement of Grounds and Particular was filed on the �� of November �� (AU�� SGP). Evidence in

th

Support (AU�� E�S) was filed on the � of February ��. Evidence in Answer (AU�� E�A) was filed on the ��th of May ��.

th

Evidence in Reply (AU�� E�R) was filed on the �� of July ��, completing the evidence for the AU�� opposition.

rd

st

�. � also note the Applicant filed a s�� voluntary amendment for application AU�� on the � and the �� of August ��. An

th

examiner considered the amendments allowable and granted leave to amend, which was advertised on the � of October ��.

th

Additional s�� amendments were filed on the �� of August ��, which were considered allowable and advertised as allowable

th

on the � of December ��. These amendments were not opposed and subsequently incorporated into the specification.

Applications AU�� & AU��

�. The Opponent’s written submissions for AU�� (Opponent’s AU�� written submissions) and AU�� (Opponent’s AU��

th

written submissions) were filed on the � April ��. The Applicant’s written submissions for AU�� (Applicant’s AU�� written

th

submissions) and AU�� (Applicant’s AU�� written submissions) being filed on the �� of April �� and the �� of April ��

st

nd

respectively. The hearings were via video conference held on the �� and the �� of April ��.

APPL�CABLE LAW

��. The present applications are governed by the Patents Act �� (the Act) as amended by the �ntellectual Property Laws

Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act �� (RTB Act) as the applications were filed a�er �� April ��.

��. The Opponent has the onus to satisfy me, on a balance of probabilities, that a ground of opposition to the grant exists. Then,

once satisfied, � may refuse the application or, where appropriate, give the Applicant a reasonable opportunity to amend the

relevant specification to remove any ground of opposition, as per Section ��(�A) & (�B) of the Act.

GROUNDS OF OPPOS�T�ON

��. For each of the oppositions, the Opponent listed lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, not a manner of manufacture, lack of

utility, that the specifications do not comply with s��(�)(a) or s��(�)(aa), lack of clarity and lack of support under s��(�). The

Opponent provided particulars against each of these grounds in the respective Statement of Grounds and Particulars.

��. Notably, the Opponent did not pursue all the grounds set out in the Statement of Grounds and Particulars. �n written

submissions and at the hearing, the Opponent only pressed the following grounds:

Clarity (s��(c)-s��(�))

Utility (s��(b) – s��(�)(c))

Clear enough and complete enough disclosure (s��(c)-s��(�)(a))

Support for the claims (s��(c)-s��(�))

Novelty (s��(b) – s��(�)(b)(i))

�nventive step (s��(b) – s��(�)(b)(ii))

��. Accordingly, this decision is restricted to the grounds above.

THE EV�DENCE

Application AU��

Evidence in Support

rd

Declaration by Cory Seligman (Seligman�) dated �� of November �� and annexures CS-� to CS-�.

Evidence in Answer

nd

Declaration by Jonathan R. Wood (Wood) dated �� of February �� and annexures JRW-� to JRW-�.

th

Declaration by Raymond L.J. Tettman (Tettman) dated �� of February �� and Annexures RLT-� to RLT-�.

Evidence in Reply

th

Declaration of Cory Seligman (Seligman�) dated the �� of April �� and annexures CS-� to CS-�.

Application AU��

Evidence in Support

th

Declaration by Cory Seligman (Seligman�) dated � of February �� and Annexures CS-� to CS-� (referred to as CS-�b and CS-�b

throughout this decision). Seligman� also refers to Seligman� and its supporting annexes.

Evidence in Answer

th

Declaration by Jonathan R. Wood (Wood�) dated � of May �� and annexures JRW-� to JRW-� (referred to as JRW-�b and

JRW-�b throughout this decision). Wood� refers to Wood and its annexures.

Evidence in Reply

th

Declaration of Cory Seligman (Seligman�) dated the �� of June �� and annexures. Seligman� refers to Seligman� and its

annexures.

Regulation �.��

st

Declaration from Cheng (Claire) Wang (Wang) dated the �� of May �� with supporting annexure WC-�.

Declaration by Guangming Lui (Lui) with supporting annexures GL-� to GL-�.

SPEC�F�CAT�ONS

THE BODY OF THE SPEC�F�CAT�ON OF AU��

[�]

��. The alleged invention relates to an apparatus for jump-starting a vehicle having a depleted or discharged battery. The

specification described various problems with the prior art at [��]:

“Problems with the prior art arose when either the jumper terminals or clamps of the cables were inadvertently brought into

contact with each other while the other ends were connected to a charged battery, or when the positive and negative terminals

were connected to the opposite polarity terminals in the vehicle to be jumped, thereby causing a short circuit resulting in sparking

and potential damage to batteries and/or bodily injury.”

��. The invention seeks to create an apparatus that is cost eﬀective, less complex than prior devices and that will minimise

[�]

potential for malfunction.

��. The specification follows with a summary of the invention. This section largely mirrors features of the independent claims and

some dependent claims, as will be provided below.

��. The specification then describes the preferred embodiments with reference to a number of figures. Figure �, reproduced

below, is a functional block diagram of a handheld battery booster according to one aspect of the invention. The booster device

includes a lithium polymer battery pack (��) which stores suﬀicient energy to jump start a vehicle engine served by a conventional

��-volt lead-acid or valve regulated lead-acid battery. The booster device further includes a programmable microcontroller unit

(MCU) (�), a car battery reverse sensor (��) that monitors the polarity of a vehicle battery (��) connected to the device and a

battery isolation sensor (��) that detects whether or not the vehicle battery (��) is connected to the device. A smart switch FET

circuit (��) electrically switches on power supply from the lithium ion battery pack only when the vehicle battery is determined to

[�]

be present and connected with correct polarity.

Graphical user interface, application, WordDescription automatically generated

��. Further features of the booster device include a lithium battery voltage measurement circuit (��), back-charge protection

diodes (��), flashlight LED circuit (��), voltage regulator (��), on/oﬀ manual mode and flashlight switches (��) and operation

indicator LEDs (��) which provide visual indication of lithium battery capacity status as well as smart switch activation status. The

booster device further comprises a USB charge circuit (��) for charging the lithium battery pack (��) and a USB output (��) which

[�]

provides portable charging for rechargeable electronic devices.

��. A detailed operation of the handheld booster device is then described with reference to figures �A-�C. �n essence, the MCU (�)

receives inputs from the reverse polarity sensor (��) and the isolation sensor (��) to determine when it is safe to turn on the smart

[�]

switch FET (��), thereby connecting the lithium battery pack (��) to the jumper terminals of the booster device.

��. An advantage of the booster device was described at [��] of the AU�� specification:

“...Consequently, if the car battery �� is either not connected to the booster device at all, or is connected with reverse polarity, the

MCU can keep the smart switch FET �� from being turned on, thus prevent sparking/short circuiting of the lithium battery pack.”

��. Features and advantages of the voltage measurement circuitry (��) were discussed at [��] of AU�� with reference to

Figures �A-� to �A-� as provided in Annexure C:

“Referring back to Fig. �A, the internal lithium battery pack voltage can be accurately measured using circuit �� and one of the

analog-to-digital inputs of the microcontroller �. Circuit �� is designed to sense when the main �.�V regulator �� voltage is on, and

to turn on transistor �� when the voltage of regulator �� is on. When transistor �� is conducting, it turns on FET ��, thereby

providing positive contact (LB+) of the internal lithium battery a conductive path to voltage divider �� allowing a lower voltage

range to be brought to the microcontroller to be read. Using this input, the microcontroller so�ware can determine if the lithium

battery voltage is too low during discharge operation or too high during charge operation, and take appropriate action to prevent

damage to electronic components.”

��. Further features and advantages of the alleged invention are described in [��]-[��] and [��] of AU��. �n particular, the

temperature of the internal lithium battery pack is measured by two negative temperature coeﬀicient devices which allow the

MCU to determine when it is too hot to allow jumpstarting, three lithium battery back charge protection diodes are used to allow

current to flow only from the internal lithium battery pack to the car battery thereby preventing back-charging, the main power

switch allows the booster device to be turned on or oﬀ, the microcontroller includes a timer that turns the power oﬀ a�er a

predefined period of time if not used, an LED can be controlled for SOS patterns, LED indicators may be provided to indicate

remaining capacity of the internal lithium battery or to provide visual warnings to the user when vehicle battery has been

connected in reverse polarity, a “Boost” LED provides a visual indication of when the booster device is providing jump-start power

and the on/oﬀ LEDs indicate whether the booster device is turned on or oﬀ. Overcharge or discharge of the internal lithium battery

is prevented via use of a lithium battery charge controller that provides charge balance.

��. The USB output (��) and charge circuit (��) are described at [��]-[��] of AU��. The USB output circuit (��) is provided

for charging portable electronic devices and the microcontroller (�) is configured to prevent the internal lithium battery (��) from

getting too low during use. Additionally, the USB charge circuit (��) allows the internal lithium battery pack (��) to be charged

using a standard USB charger. The �V potential from standard USB chargers is up-converted to the ��.�VDC voltage required using

a DC-DC converter (not shown on figure �). The DC-DC converter can be turned on and oﬀ by an output from the microcontroller

[�]

(�).

��. The specification lastly describes the physical features of a handheld device and a jumper cable device of the preferred

embodiment at [��]-[��] of AU��. The handheld device comprising a power switch, LED indicators, volt output port, USB

input port and USB output port. The jumper cable device, designed for use with the handheld device, having a plug configured to

plug into the volt output port of the handheld device, a pair of cables integrated with said plugs which are connected to the

battery terminal clamps of the car battery (��) via ring terminals. The port and plug may be dimensioned to permit only a specific

orientation, thereby ensuring the clamps will correspond to either negative or positive polarity. Lastly, the ring terminals may be

disconnected from the clamps and connected directly to the car battery (��) in the event there is a need to permanently attach

[�]

the cables to the battery of the vehicle.

THE BODY OF THE SPEC�F�CAT�ON OF AU��

��. The AU�� specification, including the description and the figures, is largely the same as the body of the AU�� specification.

The ‘SUMMARY OF THE �NVENT�ON’ section in the AU�� specification diﬀers from AU��. This section reflects the independent

claims of AU�� as provided below.

CLA�MS OF AU��

��. There are �� claims, of which claims �, � and � are independent. The claims are directed to an apparatus for jump starting a

vehicle having a depleted or discharged vehicle battery and are provided in Annexure A. �ndependent claims �, � and � are

reproduced here, including reference numerals for each claimed feature:

Claim �:

�. An apparatus for jump starting a vehicle having a depleted or discharged vehicle battery with positive and negative polarity

terminals, the device having the following features:

�.� a power supply;

�.�. a positive polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

�.�. a negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

�.�. a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors,

the vehicle battery isolation sensor configured to detect a presence of the vehicle battery when connected between the positive and

negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

�.�. a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors, the

reverse polarity sensor configured to detect a polarity of the vehicle battery connected between the positive and negative polarity

vehicle battery terminal connectors and to provide an output signal indicating that the positive and negative polarity terminals of the

vehicle battery are properly connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors;

�.�. a power switch connected between the power supply and the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

and

�.�. a microcontroller;

�.�.�. configured to receive input signals from the vehicle isolation sensor and the reverse polarity sensor,

�.�.�. the microcontroller is configured to provide an activating output signal to turn on the power switch to cause the power supply to

be connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors in response to the microcontroller receiving input

signals simultaneously from the sensors indicating both the presence and connection of the vehicle battery to the positive and

negative polarity vehicle battery connectors and proper polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the

vehicle battery with the positive and negative polarity battery terminal connectors, and

�.�.�. the microcontroller is configured to provide a deactivating output signal to turn oﬀ the power switch to cause the power supply

to be disconnected from the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors in response to the microcontroller receiving

input signals from the sensors indicating the absence of the vehicle battery connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle

battery connectors and/or improper polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle battery to the

positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors.

Claim �:

�. An apparatus for jump starting a vehicle having a depleted or discharged vehicle battery with positive and negative polarity

terminals, the device having the following features:

�.� a power supply;

�.� a positive polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

�.� a negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

�.� a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors,

the vehicle battery isolation sensor configured to detect a presence of the vehicle battery when connected between the positive and

negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

�.� a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors, the

reverse polarity sensor configured to detect a polarity of the vehicle battery connected between the positive and negative polarity

vehicle battery terminal connectors and to provide an output signal indicating that the positive and negative polarity terminals of the

vehicle battery are properly connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors;

�.� a power switch connected between the power supply and the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

and

�.� a microcontroller;

�.�.� configured to receive input signals from the vehicle isolation sensor and said reverse polarity sensor,

�.�.� the microcontroller configured to control operation of the power switch,

�.�.� wherein the microcontroller is configured to turn on the power switch when receiving input signals from the vehicle isolation

sensor and reverse polarity sensor indicating both the presence and connection of the vehicle battery to the positive and negative

polarity vehicle battery connectors and proper polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle

battery with the positive and negative polarity battery terminal connectors, and

�.�.� wherein the microcontroller is configured to turn oﬀ the power switch when receiving input signals from the sensors indicating

the absence of the vehicle battery connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors and/or improper

polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle battery to the positive and negative polarity vehicle

battery connectors.

Claim �:

�. An apparatus for jump starting a vehicle having a depleted or discharged vehicle battery with positive and negative polarity

terminals, the device having the following features:

�.� a power supply;

�.� a positive polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

�.� a negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

�.� a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors,

the vehicle battery isolation sensor configured to detect a presence of the vehicle battery when connected between the positive and

negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

�.� a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors, the

reverse polarity sensor configured to detect a polarity of the vehicle battery connected between the positive and negative polarity

vehicle battery terminal connectors and to provide an output signal indicating that the positive and negative polarity terminals of the

vehicle battery are properly connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors;

�.� a power switch connected between the power supply and the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

and

�.� a microcontroller;

�.�.� configured to receive input signals from the vehicle isolation sensor and the reverse polarity sensor,

�.�.� the microcontroller is configured to turn on the power switch to cause the power supply to be connected to the positive and

negative polarity vehicle battery connectors in response to the microcontroller receiving input signals simultaneously from the

sensors indicating both the presence and connection of the vehicle battery to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery

connectors and proper polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle battery with the positive and

negative polarity battery terminal connectors, and

�.�.� the microcontroller is configured to turn oﬀ the power switch to cause the power supply to be disconnected from the positive and

negative polarity vehicle battery connectors in response to the microcontroller receiving input signals from the sensors indicating the

absence of the vehicle battery connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors and/or improper polarity

connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle battery to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery

connectors.

CLA�MS OF AU��

��. There are �� claims, of which claim � and �� are independent. The claims are directed to a jump starter apparatus for boosting

or charging a depleted or discharged battery and are provided in Annexure B. �ndependent claims � and �� are reproduced here,

including reference numerals for each claimed feature:

Claim �:

�. A jump starter apparatus for boosting or charging a depleted or discharged battery having a positive battery terminal and a

negative battery terminal, the apparatus comprising:

�.� a power supply;

�.� a positive battery connector for connecting the jump starter apparatus to the positive battery terminal of the depleted or

discharged battery;

�.� a negative battery connector for connecting the jump starter apparatus to the negative battery terminal of the depleted or

discharged battery;

�.� a power switch connected in circuit with the power supply and the positive and negative battery connectors, the power switch

configured to turn power on or oﬀ from the power supply to the positive and negative battery connectors;

�.� a control system or circuit connected to and controlling the power switch, the control system or circuit configured to detect

presence of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors and to detect

polarity of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors;

�.� wherein the control system or circuit switches on the power switch to connect the power supply to the depleted or discharged

battery only when the depleted or discharged battery is present and properly connected between the positive and negative battery

connectors and the depleted or discharged battery is properly connected with a correct polarity between the positive and negative

battery terminals.

Claim ��:

��. A jump starter apparatus for boosting or charging a depleted or discharged battery having a positive battery terminal and a

negative battery terminal, the apparatus comprising:

�.� a power supply;

�.� a positive battery connector for connecting the jump starter apparatus to the positive battery terminal of the depleted or

discharged battery;

�.� a negative battery connector for connecting the jump starter apparatus to the negative battery terminal of the depleted or

discharged battery;

�.� a power switch connected in circuit with the power supply and the positive and negative battery connectors, the power switch

configured to turn power on or oﬀ from the power supply to the positive and negative battery connectors;

�.� a control system or circuit connected to and controlling the power switch, the control system or circuit configured to detect

presence of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors and to detect

polarity of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors;

�.� wherein the control system or circuit switches on the power switch to cause the power supply to be connected to the depleted or

discharged battery when, and only when, the depleted or discharged battery is present and properly connected between the positive

and negative battery connectors and the depleted or discharged battery is properly connected with a correct polarity between the

positive and negative battery terminals.

PERSON SK�LLED �N THE ART

��. Finkelstein J considered person skilled in the art (PSA) in Root Quality Pty Ltd v Root Control Technologies Pty Ltd [��] FCA

��; �� PR �� at [��]:

“He is the person to whom the patent is addressed and who must construe it. He is the person whose knowledge will determine

whether a patent is novel. He is the person who will judge whether a patent is obvious.”

��. The High Court in AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [��] HCA �� at [��], further clarified that a PSA is not a real person, but an

artificial construct used as a tool for analysis:

“The notional person is not an avatar for expert witnesses whose testimony is accepted by the Court. �t is a pale shadow of a real

person – a tool of analysis which guides the Court in determining, by reference to expert and other evidence, whether an invention

as claimed does not involve an inventive step.”

��. The PSA is a person or team of people versed in the relevant subject matter and possesses the relevant common general

[�]

knowledge. �t is emphasised that a person skilled in the art is not a person of exceptional skill and knowledge.

��. Both the Opponent and the Applicant agreed that the hypothetical person skilled in the art for both AU�� and AU�� ‘would

be a person with practical interest in the design and manufacture of battery powered consumer devices such as portable vehicle

[�]

battery jump start apparatus’. � agree with this assessment given the technical field of the invention is related to power

electronics and circuits, in particular battery systems.

��. � have considered the relevant background and experience of the declarants from the relevant evidence, and � am satisfied

that they can provide relevant evidence as to what a person skilled in the art would know or do. Dr Wood has extensive experience

in power electronics and battery systems as evident from his Curriculum Vitae provided in Annexure JRW-�. While Mr Seligman’s

experience is more broadly directed to engineering and design, it is clear that he has relevant experience with motorised vehicles

[��]

and consumer protection features of electronic circuits. Therefore both Dr Wood and Mr Seligman are well placed to provide

evidence in this opposition. To the extent that it is necessary, where there is conflicting evidence, � will provide reasoning for

which is preferred.

CLA�M CONSTRUCT�ON AND CLAR�TY

��. As provided for in s��(�) of the Act, the claims must be clear and succinct. The requirement for the claims to be clear does not

mean that terms used in claims must be precise or absolute, as noted in Flexible Steel Lacing Company v Beltreco Ltd [��] FCA

�� at [��]; [��] FCA ��; (��) �� PR �� at �� (and cited with approval in Austal Ships Sales Pty Ltd v Stena Rederi Aktiebolag

[��] FCAFC ��; (��) �� PR ��) (Austal Ships):

“Lack of precise definition in claims is not fatal to their validity, so long as they provide a workable standard suitable to the

intended use...The consideration is whether, on any reasonable view, the claim has meaning...�n determining this, the expressions

in question must be understood in a practical, common sense manner... Absurd constructions should be avoided...and mere

technicalities should not defeat the grant of protection...”

��. �n particular, one can consider that the claims provide a workable standard if a third party could, without diﬀiculty, determine

whether an act falls within the scope for the claim; see Monsanto Company v commissioner of Patents (��) �� ALJR �� (Monsanto)

at ��-��:

“There will, � think, in the present case be no diﬀiculty in a third party ascertaining whether or not what he proposes to do falls

within the ambit of the claim... For these reasons � do not regard the use of the adjective “substantial” as giving rise to any

uncertainty.”

��. Claim construction was discussed by Bennett J in H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [��] FCAFC �� (Lundbeck) at [��]-

[��]:

“...the words in a claim should be read through the eyes of the skilled addressee in the context in which they appear. Words used

in a specification, including the claims, are to be given the meaning which the person skilled in the art would attach to them,

having regard to his or her own general knowledge and to what is disclosed in the body of the specification... construction of a

specification, including the claims, is ultimately a question of law for the Court... While the claims define the monopoly claimed in

the words of the patentee's choosing, the specification should be read as a whole... �t is not permissible to read into a claim an

additional integer or limitation to vary or qualify the claim by reference to the body of the specification... However, terms in the

claim which are unclear may be defined or clarified by reference to the body of the specification...”

Claim construction of AU��

Scope of the reverse polarity sensor output signal

��. The parties addressed the construction of claims �, � and � of AU��; in particular, the scope of the output of the reverse

polarity sensor (feature �.�, �.� and �.�).

��. The Opponent construed the claims to include a reverse polarity sensor that must be able to provide a signal which indicates

a proper polarity connection. Further suggesting that the sensor may also be capable of providing a signal indicating an improper

[��]

polarity connection, however this is not required by the claim.

��. Alternatively, the Applicant argued that the claims should be construed to include a reverse polarity sensor with an output

signal that indicates, even indirectly, that there is a proper connection. �n other words, they suggest that since there are binary

outputs from the sensor, both outputs will give an indication as to whether there is a proper connection of a connected vehicle

[��]

battery.

��. Dr Wood observed that the reverse polarity sensor must be configured to detect polarity of a connected vehicle battery and to

[��]

provide an indicative signal to the microcontroller that the battery is properly connected with correct polarity. Dr Wood further

[��]

notes that there is no requirement in any of claims � to � that the signal be of a specific nature. Mr Seligman appears to agree

with Dr Wood. Mr Seligman argues that, while he agrees with Dr Wood’s construction of the claims, he does not believe the

invention described could function as claimed. He argued, this was because the reverse polarity sensor described in the

specification would return the same ‘high’ output signal when the battery is connected with proper polarity as it would when

[��]

there is a depleted or no battery present.

��. � agree with the experts that there is no requirement in the claims for the output signal to be of a particular nature. As Dr

Wood mentioned, there is no explicit mention of the output signal needing to be true/false or �/�. � further note, Mr Seligman’s

evidence does not contradict the Applicant’s construction of the claims. Rather than providing an alternative interpretation, Mr

Seligman appears to take issue with the disclosure in the specification when compared with the claims. Given the reverse polarity

sensor is configured only to detect polarity of a connected vehicle battery, it logically follows that the output signals are binary,

either proper polarity or improper polarity.

��. �n light of the above, the reverse polarity sensor of claims � to � must be configured to detect polarity of a connected vehicle

battery and the output signal of said reverse polarity sensor must be able to provide an indication of a vehicle battery connected

with proper or improper polarity.

Scope of the microcontroller activating output signal

��. Although at the hearing the Opponent and Applicant agreed on the scope of the microcontroller and its functionality in claims

� to � (feature �.�.�, �.�.� and �.�.�), given the emphasis the Applicant placed on this feature, � found it important to briefly address.

��. �n their written submissions the Opponent considered the claims to include a microcontroller that provides an activating

output signal in response to receiving certain signals from a reverse polarity sensor and a battery isolation sensor

[��]

simultaneously. This is largely consistent with the Applicant’s construction of this feature. The Applicant submitted the claims

require the microcontroller to turn on the power in response to both the input from the reverse polarity sensor and the vehicle

battery isolation sensor. This function providing the desired benefit. The microcontroller operates to allow the circuit to close and

for the connection of power only when the appropriate signal is received from both sensors; in the event one sensor fails the

[��]

connection will not close.

��. To summarise, the microcontroller is configured to turn on the power switch in response to receiving input signals from both

the isolation sensor and reverse polarity sensor. The microcontroller will turn on the power when the battery isolation sensor

indicates the presence of the vehicle battery and the reverse polarity sensor indicates the battery is connected with proper

polarity.

Clarity Regarding Claims of AU��

Claims � to �

��. The Opponent considers claims � to � to be unclear as the microcontroller cannot receive input signals from the sensors

indicating both the absence of a vehicle battery and an improper polarity connection. This is because the isolation sensor only

provides a signal indicating an absence of a vehicle battery when the battery is not connected, and the reverse polarity sensor can

only provide a signal indicating an improper polarity connection if the apparatus is connected to a vehicle battery. The Opponent

submitted ‘to the extent that claim � defines that the microcontroller is configured to provide a deactivating output signal in

[��]

response to input signals indicating both conditions, it is unclear’.

��. The Applicant disagreed, asserting there was no clarity issue in respect of claims � to �. They alleged that the specification

makes it clear that a proper or improper connection is only required to be detected where the vehicle battery is connected to the

jump-starting apparatus. �n particular, they submit that the microcontroller is not required to receive input signals from the

reverse polarity sensor in the absence of a vehicle battery as the vehicle battery is assumed to be present based on the wording of

[��]

the claim.

��. The relevant passage of claim � is as follows (my emphasis added):

“...the microcontroller is configured to provide a deactivating output signal to turn oﬀ the power switch to cause the power supply

to be disconnected from the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors in response to the microcontroller receiving

input signals from the sensors indicating the absence of the vehicle battery connected to the positive and negative polarity

vehicle battery connectors and/or improper polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle

battery to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors...”

Similar language is used in claims � and � to describe this feature, therefore the following comments on clarity apply to each.

��. � have construed the above feature to include a microcontroller configured to turn oﬀ the power switch in response to input

signals from the sensors. The microcontroller provides the deactivating output signal when the input signals indicate either a) the

absence of the vehicle battery, b) an improper polarity connection or c) an absence of the vehicle battery and an improper

polarity connection. These three alternatives are introduced via the use of ‘and/or’ in the claim. As the Opponent pointed out, the

reverse polarity sensor can only detect polarity of a connected vehicle battery, therefore the microcontroller can only receive an

input indicating improper connection when the battery is also determined to be present. �t follows that, with regards to option c),

it would not be possible for the microcontroller to receive input signals indicating both the absence of a vehicle battery and an

improperly connected vehicle battery.

��. With that said, as discussed above in Austal Ships, the expressions must be understood in a practical, common-sense manner,

absurd constructions should be avoided, and mere technicalities should not defeat the grant of protection. � acknowledge that, in

the context of the claim, it would be absurd to construe the microcontroller as receiving inputs about the polarity of a vehicle

battery if it were not connected. To the extent it would be possible to receive polarity inputs where a battery is not connected, a

signal indicating absence of a battery would still lead to deactivation. �t is quite clear that the feature would be understood as

simply leading to deactivation where there is either one of the relevant improper conditions present. The apparent impossibility

of both improper conditions being present has no bearing on how the claim is to be understood. Therefore, in accordance with

Monsanto, � do not think it would be likely that a third party would have diﬀiculty determining whether an act falls within the

scope of the claims since an input indicating either an absence of a vehicle battery or a vehicle battery connected in reverse

polarity would trigger the deactivating output signal.

��. Consequently, � do not consider claim � and, for similar reasoning, claims � to � to lack clarity.

Claim �

��. Claim � of AU�� is as follows:

�. The apparatus according to claim �, � or �, wherein the vehicle battery isolation sensor detects presence or absence of the vehicle

battery prior to any initial connection and is not reliant upon any pre-established connection or operation of the circuit with the

positive and negative polarity battery terminal connectors.

��. The Opponent argued that claim � was unclear. They construed claim � to include an isolation sensor which detects presence

or absence of the vehicle battery prior to any connection. Since the isolation sensor cannot detect the presence of a vehicle

[��]

battery that is not connected, they argued this renders claim � unclear.

��. The Applicant considered there to be no ambiguity in claim �. They highlighted that the experts agree that the ‘initial

[��]

connection’ in that claim refers to a connection between the power supply and the vehicle battery via the power switch.

��. With regards to claim �, Mr Seligman states the following:

“To the extent that claims � to � refer to a ‘connection’ it is between the apparatus and the vehicle battery. �t does not make sense

that the isolation sensor could detect the presence of a vehicle battery before the apparatus is connected to such a battery. �t is

possible that claim � is referring to a connection between the power supply of the apparatus and the vehicle battery via the power

[��]

switch.”

��. Dr Wood agreed that the initial connection is referring to connection between the power supply of the apparatus and the

[��]

vehicle battery via the power switch.

��. � agree with the experts in this instance. �t would be absurd to conclude that claim � should be read to require that the

isolation sensor detects presence of a vehicle battery prior to any initial connection with the apparatus. Any ambiguity within

claim � is easily resolved by reading the claims within the context of the specification. �n particular, it is an object of the invention

to prevent power supply if there is no battery connected. This is to reduce potential damage and risk to safety in the event the

[��]

clamps of the cables come into contact while connected to a charged battery.

Therefore, consistent with the findings of both

Dr Wood and Mr Seligman, initial connection should be taken to refer to a connection between the power supply and the battery.

��. Therefore, � do not consider claim � to lack clarity.

Claim �

��. Claim � is reproduced below:

�. The apparatus according to claim �, �, or �, further comprising an output port having positive and negative polarity outputs, the

output port being configured to connect with a single removable plug, the single plug being connected to the positive and negative

polarity cables.

��. With regards to claims � or claims � to �, the Opponent considers it unclear what the positive and negative polarity cables are

as the specification only describes the use of cables integrated with the plug at one end and configured to be separately

[��]

connected to the terminals of the battery at the other end.

Alternatively, the Applicant submits that the claims are clear as Mr

[��]

Seligman can understand what is required by the claims.

��. � consider claim � to be clear. While ‘the positive and negative polarity cables’ may lack antecedent, using a purposive

construction it is apparent that the cables further define ‘the positive and negative battery connectors’ of claims � to �.

��. Therefore, claim � complies with the requirements of clarity.

Clarity Regarding Claims of AU��

��. At the hearing, the Opponent argued that the diﬀerence in scope between claims � and �� was not readily apparent, therefore

this rendered them unclear. �n their written submissions, for similar reasoning, the Opponent argued claims � to �, � to � and ��

were unclear as the functionality or features of these claims cannot be meaningfully diﬀerentiated from the functionality of prior

[��]

claims.

They further clarified at the hearing that, since the claims are dependent there is an assumption that there is a

diﬀerence in scope, as this is not the case the claims are rendered unclear.

��. �n contrast, the Applicant does not consider the claims to be unclear. They assert that the evidence does not show the experts

are unable to ascertain the scope of the claims. �n support, they point out that Mr Seligman is able to determine the scope of the

[��]

claims as he is able to discuss these features with regards to the prior art documents.

��. Starting with the diﬀerences between the independent claims � and ��. The independent claims are largely similar, diﬀering

only in the final paragraph. �n claim � the “control system or circuit switches on the power switch to connect the power supply...”

while in claim �� the “control system or circuit switches on the power switch to cause the power supply to be connected...”. �t is

apparent to me that the power switch in claim � directly connects the power supply whereas the power switch of claim �� may do

so indirectly. While the diﬀerences in scope are small this does not automatically give rise to a lack of clarity.

��. Turning to the dependent claims, claim � adds that the power is not turned on in response to signals indicating either that

there is no battery present, or it is connected with incorrect polarity. Claim � ensures, prior to turning the power switch on, the

control system or circuit detects the presence or polarity of a vehicle battery. Claim � further defines the sensors as comprising

sensing circuits. Claim � and �� describes the control system or circuit as comprising a microcontroller wherein the

microcontroller performs the relevant functions.

��. Firstly, � do not consider that the mere presence of redundant claims (which may or may not be the case here) is suﬀicient to

result in a finding against clarity unless there is also diﬀiculty in ascertaining the scope according to the principles of Monsanto

and Austal Ships discussed above. Claims are dra�ed using wording chosen by the Applicant and it is not unusual for similar

features to be defined using diﬀerent wording. Secondly, while a presumption against redundancy may assist in construing the

claims, it does not, without more, result in a lack of clarity in this particular case. �n light of this, � do not consider there to be any

ambiguity in the claims that would result in a lack of clarity.

��. Therefore, � do not consider that the claims lack clarity.

Clarity Conclusion

��. � conclude that the claims of both the AU�� and AU�� applications are clear in accordance with s��(�) of the Act. This

ground of opposition has been unsuccessful.

PR�OR�TY DATE

��. The Opponent argued that the claims �-� of AU�� and each of the claims of AU�� were not entitled to a priority date earlier

th

[��]

than � of March �� due to the breadth of the ‘power supply’ feature present in the claims.

They also argued that claim � of

th

AU�� is not entitled to a priority date earlier than �� of February �� as it does not define any particular means by which the

[��]

control system or circuit detects the presence or polarity of a connected vehicle battery.

��. Although the Opponent provided submissions, � have reserved opinion on the priority date eligibility of the claims as it is not a

grounds of opposition under s�� nor does it impact any of the grounds raised during the respective oppositions.

UT�L�TY

��. �t is a requirement of subsection ��(�)(c) of the Act that the invention, so far as claimed in any claim, must be useful. Section

[��]

�A was introduced in the RTB Act and is intended to co-exist with existing case law on utility.

��. Section �A is as follows:

“Meaning of useful

(�) For the purposes of this Act, an invention is taken not to be useful unless a specific, substantial and credible use for the

invention (so far as claimed) is disclosed in the complete specification.

(�) The disclosure in the complete specification must be suﬀicient for that specific, substantial and credible use to be appreciated

by a person skilled in the art.

Subsection (�) does not otherwise aﬀect the meaning of the work useful in this Act.”

��. Therefore, an invention must have a specific, substantial and credible use that is disclosed in the patent specification and

meet the requirements of the existing case law.

��. Existing case law on utility required that the invention must achieve the promised benefit. To assist in determining whether

the invention achieves the promised benefit, the Court in Artcra� Urban Group Pty Ltd v Streetworx Pty Ltd [��] FCAFC �� at [��]

proposed two questions:

“Put another way, the two questions are: first, what is the promise of the invention derived from the whole of the specification?;

second, by following the teaching of the specification, does the invention, as claimed in the patent, attain the result promised for

it by the patentee?...Further, ‘everything’ that is within the scope of a claim must be useful, that is, attain the result promised for

[��]

the invention by the patentee: Lundbeck at �� [��], Emmett J.

”

��. As was noted in Apotex Pty Ltd v AstraZeneca AB (No �) [��] FCA �� (see [��]):

“Ultimately, an asserted lack of utility must be established by appropriate evidence, not by mere speculation that the invention

will not work or meet the promise set out in the specification.”

��. The Opponent argued that there is nothing about the apparatus’ described in AU�� or AU�� which achieve the promised

benefit of lowering costs or reducing complexity. They further submitted that, while the device does include features that reduce

[��]

potential for malfunction, these are not diﬀerent to features already included in other known devices.

��. The Applicant argued the Opponent has not established the contention that what is claimed is not an improvement to a

vehicle jump start device. Additionally, they point out that the Opponent appears to agree that there are features which reduce

[��]

the potential for malfunction, therefore the claims cannot lack utility.

��. �n relation to claim �� of AU�� the Opponent submitted:

“�n paragraph [��] of AU�� there is reference to diodes �� which are shown in figure �B-�. As shown in that figure, the diode

module is connected between the positive terminal of the lithium battery and the terminal connector which connects to the

positive terminal of the vehicle battery. �n such a configuration, the diodes can prevent back charging. However, in claim ��, it is

said that the diodes are coupled between, on the one hand the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors

[��]

and on the other hand, the power supply. Such a configuration would not work as defined.”

��. �n response, the Applicant submitted that claim �� is to be construed to mean that the power diodes are electrically

connected in circuit between the power supply and the connectors. They argued that a person skilled in the art would understand

the claim to mean that the power diodes are electrically connected in series so as to prevent current flow from an external

[��]

electrical system back into the power supply of the apparatus via its connectors.

��. Claim �� is provided below:

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a plurality of power diodes coupled between the positive and negative polarity

vehicle battery terminal connectors and the power supply to prevent back-charging of the power supply from an electrical system

connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors.

��. With regards to the Opponent’s first point, the claimed invention is not only addressing the cost and complexity of the prior

[��]

art arrangements, it also aims to reduce potential for malfunction.

Referring to paragraph [��] of AU��, the promised

benefit is not in the combination of all these factors, but in ‘further improvements to vehicle jump starter devices’. Given the

promised benefit is described broadly, it is hard to argue that the desired result could not be achieved according to the claimed

invention which requires two specific inputs to confirm when it is, or is not, safe to close the power switch that connects the

internal power supply of the jump starter to the vehicle battery. �n using two signals, one indicating the presence and the other

indicating the polarity of a vehicle battery, there is a reduced risk to safety and potential for malfunction in the form of

[��]

redundancy.

This also provides specific, substantial and credible use for the claimed invention.

[��]

��. The Opponent appears to acknowledge that the invention described does reduce potential for malfunction.

Furthermore,

the evidence of Mr Seligman does not support a lack of utility. �n Seligman� at [��], he states “While the devices described do

include features directed to reducing potential for malfunction, these are not diﬀerent to the features already included in other

known devices”. �n this respect, no evidence has been provided by the Opponent that substantiates their assertion that the

claimed invention is incapable of achieving the promises of the invention.

��. With regards to claim ��, � agree with the Applicant. The Opponent’s construction of the claim is absurd. Using a purposive

construction, � do not consider that the claim would be read in such a way that it would not prevent back-charging. Furthermore,

any ambiguity in claim �� can easily be resolved by reference to the specification where it is clear that the power diodes are

[��]

electrically connected in circuit between the power supply and the connectors.

��. �t is clear in the absence of evidence regarding the Opponent’s assertion that the invention would not work or meet the

promise set out in the specification, � cannot conclude that the claims lack utility according to the relevant provisions of the Act.

Therefore, the Opponent’s case on this ground fails.

CLEAR ENOUGH AND COMPLETE ENOUGH D�SCLOSURE

��. The requirement for clear enough and complete enough disclosure was introduced into the Act as part of the RTB Act.

Specifically, s��(�)(a) reads as follows:

“(�) A complete specification must:

(a) Disclose the invention in a manner which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be

performed by a person skilled in the relevant art.”

��. As explained in the Explanatory Memorandum (‘EM’) to the RTB legislation at Schedule �, item �, enablement amounts to a

requirement that “...suﬀicient information must be provided to enable the whole width of the claimed invention to be performed

by the skilled person without undue burden, or the need for further invention”. As per Schedule �, item �, of the EM, the intention

is for s��(�)(a) be given the same eﬀect as corresponding provisions of UK legislation and the European Patent Convention.

��. �n CSR Building Products Limited v United States Gypsum Company [��] APO �� (‘CSR’) a Delegate of the Commissioner

considered a number of relevant UK and EPO decisions and used the following approach s��(�)(a) at [��]:

“�n order to decide whether a specification provides a disclosure as required by section ��(�), it is necessary to:

�. construe the claims to determine the scope of invention as claimed,

�. construe the description to determine what it discloses to the person skilled in the art, and

�. decide whether the specification provides an enabling disclosure of all the things that fall within the scope of the claims.”

��. Upon further analysis of relevant UK and EPO decisions on s��(�)(a), a Deputy Commissioner expanded on the third point

from the approach used in CSR in Evolva SA [��] APO �� (‘Evolva’) at [��]:

“Does the specification provide an enabling disclosure of all the things that fall within the scope of the claims, and in particular:

�. �s it plausible that the invention can be worked across the full scope of the claim?

�. Can the invention be performed across the full scope of the claim without undue burden?”

��. To expand on the principles presented in Evolva, the Deputy Commissioner considered (at [��]-[��]):

“...the assertion that the invention works across the full scope of the claim be plausible or credible, appears to me to be consistent

with, or an alternative means of articulating, the concept of a principle of general application... An assertion in a patent

specification could hardly be considered a principle with broader applicability if the skilled reader would not consider it plausible

from a technical viewpoint.”

��. The Opponent raised several arguments against s ��(�)(a) of the Act with regards to the claims of both AU�� and AU��. �

have summarised the arguments below:

a) External power supply: The Opponent argued that the claims of AU�� includes within the scope an apparatus

[��]

having an external power supply wherein there is only enabling disclosure for an internal power supply. At the

hearing, the Opponent provided similar reasoning for why there wasn’t clear enough and complete enough

disclosure of claims � to � of AU��.

b) Reverse polarity sensor indicating proper connection: With regards to the claims of AU�� and claim � of AU��,

the Opponent argued that there is not clear enough and complete enough disclosure of a reverse polarity sensor

that provides an output signal indicating a properly connected vehicle battery. The specification defines a reverse

polarity sensor that provides an output signal when the vehicle battery is improperly connected, however there is

no enabling disclosure of an output signal indicating a proper connection since this signal is indistinguishable from

[��]

an output signal produced when the vehicle battery is depleted or not connected at all.

c) Means for connecting: The Opponent argued that the claims, other than claims � and � of AU�� and claim �� of

AU��, encompass any means for connecting the apparatus to a vehicle battery when there is only enabling

disclosure for a jumper cable device having a plug at one end for connecting to the output port and a pair of clamps

[��]

at the opposite end.

d) Control system or circuit: The Opponent submitted claim � of AU�� oﬀends against s��(�)(a) as there is not clear

enough and complete enough disclosure of a control system or circuit configured to detect the polarity and

presence of a depleted battery. They argued that there is only enabling disclosure for two discrete sensors each

[��]

detecting either the presence or polarity of a battery.

��. The Applicant’s responses to each of these points were similar. More specifically, the Applicant argued that the Opponent had

not provided evidence to establish that there is insuﬀicient disclosure for a person skilled in the art to perform the invention

[��]

across the scope of the claims.

At the hearing, the Applicant also pointed out that Dr Wood said that there was suﬀicient

[��]

disclosure to perform the invention across the breadth of the claims.

��. �n light of the evidence before me � am not convinced that there is insuﬀicient disclosure of everything that falls within the

features concerned nor that there would be undue burden placed on the technical experts. S�� (�)(a) is a question of fact that is

best established through evidence from people skilled in the art. Dr Wood is the only expert that provided evidence in relation to

this issue and his statements are in support of the Applicant. Regardless � will briefly address each of the Opponent’s points

below:

a) External power supply: When properly construing the claims it is clear that they require that the apparatus

comprises the power supply, therefore implying that the power supply is an internal power supply. �t may be the

case that the Opponent is, instead, referring to whether or not an external power source is enabled by the

specification. Regardless, there is insuﬀicient evidence to suggest that there would be undue burden on a person

skilled in the art in using an external power source with the claimed apparatus. �t follows that there is clear enough

and complete enough disclosure of this feature.

b) Reverse polarity sensor indicating proper connection: A reverse polarity sensor that provides an output signal

indicating a properly connected vehicle battery would also indicate an improperly connected vehicle battery. As

discussed previously, the reverse polarity sensor, as claimed, can only detect polarity of a connected vehicle

battery, therefore, the signal it produces when there is no battery present is not indicative of a proper or improper

polarity connection. Therefore, this feature is disclosed and suﬀiciently enabled by the specification.

��. Means for connecting: � consider a person skilled in the art would possess the relevant knowledge to create any suitable

means for connecting the vehicle battery with the jump starter apparatus. There is no evidence that would suggest this would not

form part of the common general knowledge in the art.

d) Control system or circuit: � consider it would be known to a person skilled in the art which means are available to

detect the polarity and presence of a depleted vehicle battery. This broad term would include, within the scope, the

use of sensors.

��. � am therefore not satisfied on a balance of probabilities, that the specification does not disclose the invention in a manner

which is clear enough and complete enough for the invention to be performed by a person skilled in the art. This ground of

opposition has not been made out.

SUPPORT FOR THE CLA�MS

��. Sub-section ��(�) as amended by the RTB Act requires that the claims must be supported by matter disclosed in the

specification. As explained in the Explanatory Memorandum (‘EM’) to the RTB legislation at Schedule �, item �, the amendment

aims to align the requirements with those in other jurisdictions. Therefore, guidance regarding the requirements for ‘support’ can

be sought from European patent decisions such as Fuel Oils/EXXON (T��/��) [��] OJ EPO �� (‘Exxon’) at ��:

"the claims must be supported by the description, in other words it is the description of the invention in the claims that needs

support. �n the Board's judgment, this requirement reflects the general legal principle that the extent of the patent monopoly, as

defined by the claims, should correspond to the technical contribution to the art in order for it to be supported, or justified (see T

��/��, OJ EPO ��, ��). This means that the definitions in the claims should essentially correspond to the scope of the

invention as disclosed in the description. �n other words, as was stated in decision T ��/�� (OJ EPO ��, ��, point � of the

reasons), the claims should not extend to subject-matter which, a�er reading the description, would still not be at the disposal of

the person skilled in the art. Consequently, a technical feature which is described and highlighted in the description as being an

essential feature of the invention, must also be a part of the independent claim or claims defining this invention" (emphasis in the

original).

��. To summarise, support requires “the description to be the base which can fairly entitle the patentee to a monopoly of the

[��]

width claimed.”

This means that, as quoted above, “the claims should not extend to subject-matter which, a�er reading the

[��]

description, would still not be at the disposal of the person skilled in the art.”

��. More recently, Burley J explored the concept of support in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v Wyeth LLC (Merck Sharp) (No �)

[��] FCA �� at [��]- [��]:

“�n CSR Building Products Ltd v United States Gypsum Company [��] APO ��, Dr S D Barker adopted the summary provided by

Aldous J in Schering Biotech at �� – ��, which has been o�en followed in the United Kingdom (emphasis added):

...to decide whether the claims are supported by the description it is necessary to ascertain what is the invention which is

specified in the claims and then compare that with the invention which has been described in the specification. Therea�er the

court’s task is to decide whether the invention in the claims is supported by the description. � do not believe that the mere

mention in the specification of features appearing in the claim will necessarily be a suﬀicient support. The word “support” means

more than that and requires the description to be the base which can fairly entitle the patentee to a monopoly of the width

claimed.

That approach encapsulates broadly the claim support obligation under s ��(�). To it may be added the requirement that the

technical contribution to the art must be ascertained. Where it is a product, it is that which must be supported in the sense that

the technical contribution to the art disclosed by the specification must justify the breath of the monopoly claimed”.

Technical contribution

��. The Applicant argued that the technical contribution in the art is the functional feature where the control system or circuit

switches on the power switch to connect the power supply to the depleted or discharged battery only when said battery is present

and connected to the apparatus with proper polarity. They further submit that it is this feature which prevents malfunction and

[��]

confers a real-life technical advantage.

�t is apparent that the Applicant considers the technical contribution to be a principle

of general application; namely, the operation of the control system or circuit to turn on the power switch when, and only when, it

receives a signal indicating the battery is present and connected with proper polarity.

��. The Opponent however contends that the technical contribution to the art additionally comprises the following features:

�. A reverse polarity sensor indicating improper polarity connection of a connected vehicle battery;

�. Two discrete sensors detecting either the presence or polarity of a vehicle battery;

�. An internal power supply; and

�. Means for connecting the apparatus to a vehicle battery comprising a jumper cable having a plug at one end for connecting to

[��]

the output port and a pair of clamps at the opposite end.

��. While as noted by the authorities, where the technical contribution to the art is a principle of general application, the claims

may be dra�ed more broadly, it is also necessary to look at the specification to see what it asserts to be the invention and then

decide whether it can justify the breadth of the monopoly claimed.

��. As discussed earlier, the specification notes the problems of known vehicle battery jump starter devices including the risk to

safety or product damage when either the jumper terminals or clamps of the cables are inadvertently brought into contact with

each other while the other ends are connected to a charged battery, or when the positive and negative terminals were connected

to the opposite polarity terminals in the vehicle to be jumped. The object of the invention is to reduce potential for malfunction,

[��]

cost and complexity of jump starter apparatus or to provide further improvements to vehicle jump starter apparatus. The

specifications also discuss prior art attempts to solve these problems, which include various methods of detecting

[��]

proper/improper polarity connections or presence of a battery and controlling the electrical connection accordingly.

��. Relevant to solving the specified problems, � also note the following passage in the specifications (my emphasis added):

“...Using these specific inputs [indicating reverse polarity and absence of a battery], the microcontroller so�ware of MCU � can

determine when it is safe to turn on the smart switch FET ��, thereby connecting the lithium battery pack to the terminals of the

booster device. Consequently, if the car battery �� either is not connected to the booster device at all, or is connected with reverse

polarity, the MCU � can keep the smart switch FET �� from being turned on, thus preventing sparking/short circuiting of the

[��]

lithium battery pack.”

��. Consistent with the Applicant’s summary of the technical contribution, Dr Wood makes the following observations with

regards to the AU�� specification:

“�n light of the safety concerns associated with jump starters, and especially with lithium-ion batteries, the invention claimed in

AU�� provides a solution with two important safety functions. The starter should confirm that a vehicle battery is connected to

the jump starter, and also should confirm that the vehicle battery is not connected with reverse polarity. By confirming both of

these conditions, the jump starter can determine when, and importantly when not, to close the power switch that connects the

[��]

internal power supply of the jump starter to the vehicle battery.”

[��]

Dr Wood made similar comments with regards to AU��.

��. �n addition to the above, � acknowledge that the specification only discusses the use of at least two sensors, which Dr Wood

describes as providing the following benefits:

“These safety checks can be performed eﬀiciently and eﬀectively using two sensors as recited in each of Claims � to � of AU��...

The use of two separate sensors provides an extra benefit to the claimed invention in the form of redundancy. By requiring input

signals from two separate sensors, if either of the two sensors fails the microprocessor will not close the power switch, thereby

protecting the user, the jump starter, and the vehicle battery from the problems discussed above. �n this manner, the claimed

invention is fault tolerant and provides a greater margin of safety for the use. While it may be possible to detect fault conditions

with more complex designs, the two-sensor design claimed in AU�� achieves these safety benefits without adding significant

[��]

complexity.

��. On a balance, � am inclined to agree with the Applicant. � consider the technical contribution can be described more broadly

as the functional feature of controlling power supply in response to signals indicating whether a vehicle battery is present and

connected with proper polarity. While Dr Wood described the benefits of having two discrete sensors, it is evident from the

specification passage provided above, that the emphasis is placed on the specific inputs rather than the means used to achieve

this. There is also no evidence before me that would indicate that the principle applied more broadly would not be at the disposal

of a person skilled in the art a�er reading the description.

��. � also note, Mr Seligman states (my emphasis added):

“The apparatus described in each of paragraphs [��]. [��a] and [��b] appear to me to be typical jump starters controlled by

a microprocessor and having well known safety features including the ability to detect the presence of a battery and the polarity

of the device’s connection to that battery. This information is then used by the microprocessor to determine whether it is safe to

commence a jumpstarting operation... While the devices described do include features directed to reducing potential for

[��]

malfunction, these are not diﬀerent to the features already included in other known devices.”

��. To my mind, this further indicates that the technical contribution is not in the specific means of detecting the presence or

polarity of a connected vehicle battery, but rather the principle of using these signals, in combination, to control connection to

the power supply of a jump starter apparatus.

��. Therefore, � consider the technical contribution to be a jump starter apparatus configured to turn on connection to the

power supply only in response to signals indicating both the presence and proper polarity connection of a vehicle battery.

��. � will now consider each of the Opponent’s arguments against support.

Reverse polarity sensor

��. The Opponent argued that claims � to � of AU�� are not supported by matter disclosed in the specification. They submitted

that there is no support for a reverse polarity sensor which provides an output signal indicating that the positive and negative

polarity terminals of the vehicle battery are properly connected as required in claims � to �. �n particular, they claim the

description only discloses a reverse polarity sensor which provides a signal indicating that the positive and negative polarity

terminals of the vehicle battery are improperly connected. They argue that the reverse polarity sensor signal indicating a proper

[��]

connection is indistinguishable from the signal it provides when there is no battery connected.

��. The Applicant considered the Opponent’s arguments against support for the claims were based on an incorrect construction

of the claims. They argued that the preferred embodiment in the specification provides a reverse polarity sensor that indicates a

proper connection indirectly. Regardless, they argued there is suﬀicient disclosure of a proper connection in the specification and

[��]

that the technical contribution is not limited to the output signal indicating either a proper or improper connection.

��. As discussed previously, the wording of the claims dictate that the reverse polarity sensor is configured to detect polarity of a

connected vehicle battery, it does not determine polarity when there is no vehicle battery connected. �n light of this, the outputs

from the reverse polarity sensor are binary, wherein one output indicates proper polarity, therefore the description provides

support for this feature.

��. � conclude claims � to � of AU�� are supported.

Two discrete sensors

��. The Opponent submitted that claims � and �� of AU�� define a control system or circuit configured to detect the presence

and polarity of a depleted battery wherein there is only support for two discrete sensors which detect the polarity or presence of

[��]

connected vehicle battery in the specification.

They provided similar reasoning for claim � of AU��, arguing there is no

[��]

support for a single sensor configured to detect both the presence and polarity of a connected vehicle battery. With regards to

claims � to � of AU��, the Opponent argued that the description provides no support for an apparatus which does not have a

[��]

separate isolation sensor, a construction taken due to the wording of claim �.

��. The Applicant submitted that the technical contribution resides in the way microcontroller or control system responds to

signals indicating the presence or polarity of a connected vehicle battery, further asserting that the control circuit shown in the

preferred embodiment and the specific sensor configuration is not the technical contribution. They argue that a person skilled in

the art would appreciate that a single sensor or sensing circuit could be configured to detect both the presence and polarity of a

[��]

vehicle and provide discrete outputs to the control system defined in the claims.

��. As discussed above in Exxon, a further requirement of s��(�) is that the claims should not extend to subject-matter which,

a�er reading the description, would still not be at the disposal of the person skilled in the art. Notably, there is no material before

me that would suggest that a control system or circuit claimed broadly would not be enabled by the description, or in other

words, at the disposal of a person skilled in the art. Furthermore, as mentioned previously, the technical contribution is not

directed to the use of two discrete sensors; rather, the essential features of the claims are the two input signals, one indicating the

presence of a vehicle battery and the other indicating proper polarity connection of a vehicle battery.

��. For the reasons already discussed, � conclude claims �, � and �� of AU�� and claims � to � of AU�� are supported.

�nternal power supply

��. The Opponent submitted that each of the claims of AU�� lacked support as the claims define an apparatus having a power

[��]

supply, however there is only disclosure of an internal power supply in the specification.

At the hearing the Opponent provided

similar reasoning for why claims � to � of AU�� were not supported.

��. �n contrast the Applicant argued that the invention can operate with any suitable power source and the apparatus having an

[��]

internal battery did not define the technical contribution to the art.

��. � conclude claims � to � of AU�� and each of the claims of AU�� to be supported. As mentioned previously, it is clear that

the claims require that the apparatus comprises the power supply, therefore implying that the power supply is an internal power

supply. �t follows that there is support for this feature.

Means for connecting the apparatus to a vehicle battery

��. The Opponent argued there is no support for claims � to � of AU�� and each claim in AU��, with the exclusion of claim ��,

lacks support. The claims define any means for connecting the apparatus to a vehicle battery via positive and negative polarity

battery connectors. They considered these claims to lack support in light of the description as there is only disclosure of a jumper

[��]

cable having a plug at one end for connecting to the output port and a pair of clamps at the opposite end.

��. �n response, the Applicant argued that the technical contribution is not limited to the specific connecting means therefore it

[��]

is not necessary to specify the means in the claims.

They further argue that a person skilled in the art, armed with the relevant

common general knowledge, would appreciate that any suitable electrical conductors could be provided to electrically connect

[��]

the apparatus to the vehicle battery, therefore the claims are supported by the technical contribution in the art.

��. As identified above, the technical contribution is directed to the input signals indicating either the presence of a vehicle

battery or the polarity of a connected battery and the use of those input signals to control connection to the power supply.

Therefore, the specific means for connecting the device to a vehicle battery does not form part of the technical contribution.

��. � also agree with the Applicant that a person skilled in the art would possess the relevant knowledge to create any suitable

means for connecting the vehicle battery with the jump starter apparatus. Also noting, that Mr Seligman describes the known and

[��]

common ways to achieve this.

��. Therefore, claims � to � of AU�� and the claims of AU�� are suﬀiciently supported by matter disclosed in the description.

Conclusion regarding support for the claims

��. All claims of each of the AU�� and AU�� are supported by matter disclosed in the description. The Opposition fails on this

ground.

NOVELTY

��. As discussed in Meyers Taylor Pty Ltd v Vicarr �ndustries Ltd [��] HCA �� at [��]; (��) CLR �� at page ��; [��] HCA ��; ��

ALR �� at page �� (‘Meyers Taylor’) novelty is determined using the reverse infringement test:

“The basic test for anticipation or want of novelty is the same as that for infringement and generally one can properly ask oneself

whether the alleged anticipation would, if the patent were valid, constitute an infringement.”

��. Further, guidance on whether disclosure comprises an infringement can be found in General Tire & Rubber Company v The

Firestone Tyre and Rubber Company Limited [��] RPC �� at pages ��-�� (‘General Tire & Rubber’):

“...if carrying out the directions contained in the prior inventor's publication will inevitably result in something being made or

done which, if the patentee's patent were valid, would constitute an infringement of the patentee's claim, this circumstance

demonstrates that the patentee's claim has in fact been anticipated.

�f, on the other hand, the prior publication contains a direction which is capable of being carried out in a manner which would

infringe the patentee's claim, but would be at least as likely to be carried out in a way which would not do so, the patentee's claim

will not have been anticipated, although it may fail on the ground of obviousness. To anticipate the patentee’s claim the prior

publication must contain clear and unmistakeable directions to do what the patentee claims to have invented ... A signpost,

however clear, upon the road to the patentee's invention will not suﬀice.”

��. �n the AU�� SGP the Opponent raised the following citations against Novelty:

th

US��, Krieger et al, � of July ��

th

WO��, Vector Products, �nc, �� of April ��

th

US��, Krieger et al, �� of December ��

th

US��, Richardson et al, �� of June ��

th

The grandparent application: AU��, The NOCO Company, �� of January ��

The oﬀering for sale and sale by ATD Tools, �nc of a product identified as the ATD �� Jump Starter prior to July ��.

��. �n the AU�� SGP the Opponent raised the following citations against Novelty:

th

US��, Krieger et al, � of July ��

th

US��, Richardson et al, �� of June ��

th

The grandparent application: AU��, The NOCO Company, �� of January ��

rd

CN�� Shanghai Guangwei Electric & Tools Co., Ltd., �� of January ��

th

US��, Zhang et al, �� of March ��

��. At the hearing and in their written submissions, the Opponent proceeded only with the following citations for each of AU��

and AU��:

rd

CN�� Shanghai Guangwei Electric & Tools Co., Ltd., �� of January �� (Zhang�)

th

US��, Zhang et al, �� of March �� (Zhang�)

CN�� (Zhang�)

Disclosure of CN�� (Zhang�)

��. As the Applicant pointed out, the disclosure of Zhang� is in dispute due to conflicting English translations. As a result, there

are four diﬀerent versions of Zhang�. This includes, the first English translation contained in Annexure CS-�, a machine translated

English version contained in CS-�, a third English translation of paragraphs [��] and [��] filed under Reg. �.�� and contained

[��]

in Annexure WC-�, and the Chinese version commented on by Mr Lui in his declaration.

��. As best understood, Zhang� is directed to a jump starter apparatus further comprising the use of voice prompts that transmit

relevant operational information to the user. The disclosure of Zhang� is best represented in Figure � provided below.

Graphical user interface, applicationDescription automatically generated

��. The jump starter apparatus comprises a power supply, a change-over switch, a DC contactor or power switch, an output

[��]

power clip and a CPU master control circuit connected to a sampling or sensing circuit and a driver control circuit. Zhang�

further detects reverse polarity or low/no voltage (and therefore the presence) of a vehicle battery and controlling the DC

[��]

contactor in response to those signals.

��. There is confusion about whether the vehicle battery is sampled at the input or output terminal of the DC contactor in

Zhang�. This is the result of ambiguity in paragraphs [��] and [��] of the original Chinese language version. As Mr Lui states:

“...�f exactly translated into English, this statement would read ‘...is connected to the put terminal of the DC contactor...’. That is,

the expressions is ‘put terminal’ instead of ‘input terminal’ or ‘output terminal’. � consider that the expression ‘put terminal’ does

not made sense not only in Chinese language but also in English language. �t may be that this is why in the English language

translation of CN��, the expression in paragraph [��] was translated into ‘input terminal’ while the expression in

[��]

paragraph [��] was translated into ‘output terminal’, despite both paragraphs using the same Chinese text.”

��. Although, in her initial translation of Zhang�, Ms Wang translated the text to ‘input end’, she later clarified that she agreed

with Mr Lui that the text is unclear. Further clarifying that her initial translation was based on her understanding of how she

[��]

believed the circuits shown in the figures of Zhang� should function.

��. Dr Wood observed that if Zhang� teaches measuring the voltage of the vehicle battery at the ‘input terminal’ of the DC

contactor, the DC contactor (power switch) must already have been closed. Therefore, Zhang� would not disclose that the

microcontroller or control system receives input signals indicating the presence and polarity of a vehicle battery simultaneously

[��]

before it turns on the power switch.

��. At the hearing the parties disagreed on whether or not the ambiguity in Zhang� could be resolved by having regard to other

passages or figures in the citation. The Opponent argued that paragraph [��] of the first English translation of Zhang� was not

in dispute, therefore any ambiguity could be resolved having regard to that passage. The Applicant did not accept that paragraph

[��] was translated correctly in the first instance. The Applicant argued that there is no verified English translation of the

entirety of Zhang� and, as such, there cannot be clear and unmistakable direction of the claimed features since the conflicting

translations cast doubt on the disclosure contained therein.

��. At the hearing, the Opponent directed attention to Mr Seligman’s and Mr Lui’s declarations. While in his first declaration Mr

Seligman makes no reference to the error in paragraphs [��] and [��] of the first English translation, he clarifies in Seligman�

at [��]:

“� believe the word “input” to be a translation error which should read “output”. Firstly, paragraph [��] of Zhang � refers to a

connection for the purposes of detecting the voltage and the “BAT+/External” point. As it made clear in paragraph [��] of Zhang

�, “OUT+ sampling point is actually connected to the input terminal of the “DC contactor”. Secondly, paragraph [��] of Zhang �,

which is equivalent to paragraph [��] but with the ��V selection rather than ��V, refers to a connection to the output terminal of

the DC contactor for the purposes of detecting the voltage and the “BAT+/External” point.”

��. Mr Lui made similar observations in his declaration at [��]:

“�n paragraph [��] of CN�� it is said that the ‘OUT+’ sampling point is connected to the input end of the DC contactor

and the ‘BAT/External’ sampling point is connected to the output end of the DC contactor. Considering that in both paragraphs

[��] and [��] it is said that ‘...is connected to the put terminal of the DC contactor, so that the microcontroller can detect the

eﬀective voltage value within the range of ��V gear at the “BAT+/External” point’, � consider that the ambiguity which exists in

paragraphs [��] and [��] can be resolved by reference to paragraph [��]. That is, although the expressions in paragraphs

[��] and [��] are unclear and incomplete (‘put terminal’), the meaning of the expressions can be unambiguously determined

(as ‘output terminal’) based on the context in [��], [��], and [��] when read and understood together.”

��. Alternatively, the Applicant pointed to Ms Wang’s second declaration to suggest that, even if we accept the first translation of

[��], the passage still does not resolve the ambiguity. �n particular, in Wang� at [�]:

“� note that the above two names, ‘BAT/External’ and ‘BAT+/External’, are not completely the same. Referring to F�G � of Zhang�,

there are components named ‘BAT/External’ and ‘BAT+’, which have their own meanings. �f it is ‘BAT/External’ rather than

‘BAT+/External’ that is intended in paragraphs [��], there is a clerical error which makes the description unclear.”

��. The Opponent addressed this submission by pointing to Dr Wood’s declaration where he states that he believes

[��]

“BAT+/External” in the relevant paragraphs is referring to “BAT/External”.

��. To further support the existence of ambiguity, the Applicant pointed to several passages in Dr Wood’s declaration. Dr Wood

described several reasons he considered Zhang� to disclose that the connection is made at the input terminal of the DC contactor.

� have summarised the points below:

�. Dr Wood considers paragraph [��] to teach a sequence of actions in which the power switch is closed before a sampling

measurement of the internal battery pack is made, following which a sampling measurement of the vehicle battery is made via

[��]

the power clip teeth. Therefore, Zhang� does not teach sampling the vehicle voltage before the contactor is closed.

�. The use of “once again” in paragraph [��] of the first English translation would indicate that the DC contactor had already

[��]

been closed earlier, when measuring the voltage of the vehicle battery.

�. Paragraph [��] of the first English translation states that in function �, “When the polarity of the output current clamp is

connected in reverse, shutdown protection will be initiated by the DC contactor.” Dr Wood said that “shutdown protection” clearly

[��]

indicates that prior to detecting the reverse polarity, the DC contactor had already been closed.

��. � do not have a reliable verified translation of the entirety of Zhang�. This makes resolving any ambiguity using the context of

the specification diﬀicult. The Opponent appears to reject some parts of the first translation and then rely on other parts of the

same translation in order construe the contents of Zhang�. �t is unclear which aspects of which translations are reliable or which

parts � can reasonably rely on to assess the ground of novelty.

��. Notwithstanding this, if � were to take into consideration the changes to paragraphs [��] and [��], as Ms Wang pointed

out, there is additional ambiguity when they are compared with [��]. Paragraphs [��] and [��] refer to the BAT+/External

while paragraph [��] refers to BAT/External. This, again, calls into question the overall reliability of the translations of Zhang�.

��. While the experts appear to consider BAT+/External and BAT/External to be the same, neither have provided basis for this

assertion. Regardless, � have made the following observations. Paragraph [��] and [��] are passages that support the

assertion that BAT+/External and BAT/External are the same. �n particular, paragraph [��] of the first English translation says

(my emphasis added) “...at the same time, the power clip connects the voltage from both terminals of the external battery to the

output terminal of the DC contactor, so that the microcontroller detects that the connected battery voltage has exceeded the safe

range of ‘�� V’ at the ‘BAT+/External’”. This would suggest that “BAT+/External” is intended to refer to the BAT/External connected

to the output terminal of the DC contactor. However, it is not possible for me to determine to what extent the first English

translation is erroneous since it is evident this version made assumptions about clearly ambiguous terms, noting also that both

verified translations disclose sampling at the input end.

��. Moreover, � do not consider a machine translation to be more reliable than a verified version. As the Applicant pointed out at

the hearing, the disclaimer on the second English translation states that it cannot guarantee that the machine translation is

accurate, complete or reliable.

��. Additionally, the first English translation provides conflicting statements with regards to the operation of the DC contactor in

response to a reverse polarity connection. On the one hand, described in paragraph [��], if reverse polarity is detected ‘the DC

contactor will maintain its disconnected state’, suggesting that the DC contactor is not already closed. On the other hand,

paragraph [��] describes a ‘shutdown protection’ when reverse polarity is detected, suggesting the DC contactor would already

be closed prior to an input signal indicating reverse polarity. �t is also unclear if the reverse polarity detection would occur

sequentially or simultaneously to the battery presence detection. This further highlights the ambiguity present throughout

Zhang�.

��. At the hearing, the Opponent also argued that the machine generated English translation, contained in CS-�, disclosing

“output end” in the relevant passages, would have been available before the priority date. To briefly address this point, there is no

evidence that the machine translation was even available, as its own citation, before the priority date or, if it were, that the

disclosure would be the same as the current machine translation. Therefore � cannot give any weight to this argument.

��. �n light of the above considerations, on a balance, � do not consider Zhang� to provide clear and unmistakable direction of a

control system configured to turn on the power in response to receiving input signals indicating both the presence and polarity of

a vehicle battery. By failing to provide a reliable English translation of Zhang� the Opponent failed to discharge their onus.

Zhang�: Novelty of AU��

��. Each of the independent claims � to � require the microcontroller to be configured to turn on the power switch when

receiving input signals from the vehicle battery isolation sensor and the reverse polarity sensor indicating both the presence and

proper polarity of a vehicle battery. For the reasons discussed above, there is not clear and unmistakable direction in Zhang� of

this feature.

��. Therefore, the claims �-�� are novel in light of Zhang�.

Zhang�: Novelty of AU��

��. Each of the independent claims � and �� require that the control system or circuit switches on the power supply to the vehicle

battery when the vehicle battery is determined to be present and connected with correct polarity. For the reasons discussed

above, there is not clear and unmistakable directions in Zhang� of this feature.

��. Therefore, the claims �-�� are novel in light of Zhang�.

ZHANG�

Disclosure of Zhang�

��. As best shown in Figure � below, Zhang� discloses an emergency power supply device with automatic preheating function.

The apparatus described in Zhang� further comprises a lithium battery pack, an output control module, a CPU master control

module, an operation panel display function module, a heater control module, a heater module, an information sampling module

and a charging module.

Graphical user interface, applicationDescription automatically generated

��. Zhang� further discloses that the output module comprises output wires, an output connecting port, and/or a positive, or a

[��]

negative port clip, and functions to connect the device’s battery and an external electric device or vehicle battery.

Zhang�

describes detecting reverse polarity (Reverse-Ctrl) and the presence of a vehicle battery (External BAT-TEST) as shown in Figure �

below, and also paragraph [��] and [��].

A picture containing text, screenshot, electronics, displayDescription automatically generated

��. The above features were not controversial, however the Applicant argued that while the CPU may act as a microcontroller,

there is insuﬀicient information to understand precisely how the CPU operates, or controls the power switch, in response to the

[��]

relevant input signals from the External BAT-TEST and Reverse-Ctrl. �n their AU�� written submissions at [��]-[��] they state:

“Zhang� does not indicate how the CPU handles the apparent negative input voltage at pin �� when the vehicle battery is

connected in reverse polarity. �t makes no mention of any action by the CPU to defer closure of the main power switch based on a

reading by the CPU of the state of the relevant two input signals referred to therein as External BAT-Test and Reverse-Ctrl.

The publication teaches that a�er detecting the state of all the signal inputs, the CPU proceeds to drive the relevant acoustic

alarm and heater control circuits. Given it does not disclose action taken by the CPU to defer closure of the main power switch

based on a reading of the state of the two input signals, there could be no teaching of the essential feature of the claims which

require the operation of microcontroller to turn on the switch in response to both input signals.”

��. Those submissions were consistent with Dr Wood’s observations with regards to Zhang�. �n Wood at [��] (original italics and

emphasis):

“For instance, in paragraph [��] Zhang� states: ‘As shown in F�G. �, a diagram of the master control circuit, a�er the CPU is

powered on, it will automatically detect the AD variation of all signals input ports, which is then calculated and processed to drive the

corresponding opto-acoustic alarm control circuit and the heater switch control circuit.’ Thus, Zhang� teaches that a�er detecting

the state of all of the signal input ports, Zhang�’s CPU proceeds to drive the relevant acoustic alarm and heater control circuits,

but Zhang� makes no mention of any action by the CPU to defer closure of the main power switch based on a reading by the CPU

of the state of the relevant two input signals External BAT-TEST and Reverse-Ctrl.”

��. Dr Wood also observed in Wood at [��] (original italics and emphasis):

“�n his Claim �, Zhang� states that the CPU master control module ‘receives information from the sampling module...estimating and

distinguishing the connection status of a connected external battery apparatus and sending a corresponding instruction or a

compulsory switching oﬀ message when an error occurs...’ that a switching oﬀ message is sent when an error occurs means that the

switch was already in an ON state when an error was detected, even assuming that the switch referred to here is the main power

switch.”

��. At the hearing the Opponent relied on Mr Seligman’s declarations as evidence of what was disclosed in Zhang�. Provided

below is Mr Seligman’s response to Dr Wood’s assertions:

“...�t is clear to me that Zhang � discloses a jump stater device which includes a battery presence detection circuit and battery

polarity detection circuit as identified in paragraph [��] of Wood. Having regard to the purpose of these protections and the

overall disclosure of Zhang �, � consider that an interpretation, which involves the CPU closing the main power switch prior to and

without regard to a reading by the CPU of the state of the relevant two input signals External BAT-TEST and Reverse-Ctrl, to be

[��]

untenable...”

��. �n the Opponent’s written submissions, they make reference to Apotex Pty Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis [��] FCAFC �� at [��] to

suggest that “there is anticipation if the skilled addressee would add missing information to what is disclosed in the prior art as a

[��]

matter of course and without the application of inventive ingenuity or undue experimentation”.

However, � would note, when

this paragraph is read in context, reference to “missing information” that might be added by the skilled addressee refers to the

implicit disclosure of the citation. An implicit disclosure is confined to what is in fact disclosed to the skilled addressee by the prior

document (see AstraZeneca AB v Apotex Pty Ltd [��] FCAFC �� at [��]- [��]).

��. Mr Seligman’s statements do not provide suﬀicient basis for implicit disclosure of the CPU turning on the power switch in

response to input signals from both the External BAT-TEST and Reverse-Ctrl. �t is not clear why, having regard to the purpose of

the various protections, Mr Seligman considers it unlikely that the CPU would close the main power switch prior to a reading of

the input signals. Zhang� is directed to providing an emergency power supply with automatic preheating and, as Dr Wood

observed, there is only explicit mention of the CPU driving the relevant acoustic alarm and heater control circuits in response to

detecting the state of all of the signal input ports.

��. Therefore, � conclude that Zhang� does not provide clear and unmistakable direction of a control system that switches on

the power supply to a vehicle battery in response to signals indicating both the vehicle battery is present and connected with

correct polarity.

Zhang�: Novelty of AU��

��. Each of the independent claims � to � require the microcontroller to be configured to turn on the power switch when

receiving input signals from the vehicle battery isolation sensor and the reverse polarity sensor indicating both the presence and

proper polarity of a vehicle battery. For the reasons discussed above, there is not clear and unmistakable direction in Zhang� of

this feature.

��. Therefore, the claims �-�� are novel in light of Zhang�.

Zhang�: Novelty of AU��

��. Each of the independent claims � and �� require that the control system or circuit switches on the power supply to the

vehicle battery when the vehicle battery is determined to be present and connected with correct polarity. For the reasons

discussed above, there is not clear and unmistakable direction in Zhang� of this feature.

��. Therefore, the claims �-�� are novel in light of Zhang�.

Novelty conclusion

��. For the reasons outlined above, the claims of each of AU�� and AU�� are novel. The Opponent has failed to make a case

against novelty.

�NVENT�VE STEP

��. �t is a requirement of subsection ��(�) of the Act that the invention, so far as claimed in any claims, involves an inventive step.

Subsection �(�)-(�) states:

“(�) For the purposes of this Act, an invention is taken to involve an inventive step when compared with the prior art base unless

the invention would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art in light of the common general knowledge as it existed

(whether in or out of the patent area) before the priority date of the relevant claim, whether that knowledge is considered

separately or together with the information mentioned in subsection (�).

(�) The information for the purposes of subsection (�) is:

(a) any single piece of prior art information; or

(b) a combination of any � or more pieces of prior art information that the skilled person mentioned in subsection (�) could,

before the priority date of the relevant claim, be reasonably expected to have combined.”

��. The test for obviousness was developed in Wellcome Foundation Ltd v VR Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd [��] HCA ��; (��) ��

CLR �� (‘Wellcome Foundation’) at [��] (my emphasis added):

“The test is whether the hypothetical addressee faced with the same problem would have taken as a matter of routine

whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the invention, whether they be the steps of the inventor or not.”

��. �n considering the question of what constitutes “a matter of routine”, in Aktiebolaget Hassle v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [��] HCA

��; (��) �� CLR ��; (��) �� ALR ��; (��) �� ALJR ��, it was stated at [��]:

“That way of approaching the matter has an aﬀinity with the reformulation of the ‘Cripps question’ by Graham J in Olin Mathieson

Chemical Corporation v Biorex Laboratories Ltd. This Court had been referred to Olin in the argument in Wellcome Foundation.

Graham J had posed the question:

‘Would the notional research group at the relevant date, in all the circumstances, which include a knowledge of all the relevant

prior art and of the facts of the nature and success of chlorpromazine, directly be led as a matter of course to try the -CF

�

substitution in the “�” position in place of the -Cl atom in chlorpromazine or in any other body which, apart from the -CF

substitution, has the other characteristics of the formula of claim �, in the expectation that it might well produce a useful

alternative to or better drug than chlorpromazine or a body useful for any other purpose?’ (emphasis added)

�

That approach should be accepted.” (original emphasis, reference(s) omitted).

��. �mportantly, inventive step is a question of fact that is best established by evidence.

�nventive step considerations

��. At the hearing and in their written submissions, the Opponent proceeded only with the following citations for each of AU��

and AU��:

rd

CN�� Shanghai Guangwei Electric & Tools Co., Ltd., �� of January �� (Zhang�)

th

US��, Zhang et al, �� of March �� (Zhang�)

��. The Opponent relied primarily on a finding against novelty for each of the independent claims of AU�� and AU��. At the

hearing the Opponent argued that, in the event the claims were found novel, they would not be inventive. However, they did not

provide further explanation beyond an assertion that the necessary inferences could be drawn from Mr Seligman’s evidence.

Regardless, for completeness, � have made the following considerations with regards to inventive step.

��. Mr Seligman observed that it was known in the art to have protections against short circuit and reverse polarity connection.

He also listed other common protections including overcurrent protection, duty cycle protection, overtemperature protection,

[��]

overvoltage protection and undervoltage protection.

��. As discussed previously, neither Zhang� nor Zhang� disclose the feature of a control system that switches on the power

supply to a vehicle battery in response to signals indicating both the vehicle battery is present and connected with correct

polarity. This feature is required by each of the independent claims of both AU�� and AU��.

��. While Mr Seligman described known problems with jump-starter apparatus, there is no evidence before me that would

indicate that the provided solution would be obvious nor is it apparent that a skilled addressee faced with the same problem

would have taken as a matter of routine whatever steps might have led from the prior art to the claimed invention. The claimed

invention requires that the power is only turned on in response to input signals indicating both the presence of a vehicle battery

and a proper polarity connection. Functionally, this requires detection of these parameters prior to closing the circuit. As

discussed previously, notwithstanding the ambiguity, parts of Zhang� teach away from receiving both inputs prior to turning on

the power, therefore, when faced with the same problem, it would not be obvious to arrive at the claimed invention. With regards

to Zhang�, there is not suﬀicient evidence to establish that it would be common general knowledge or obvious to turn on the

power of a jump-starter apparatus only a�er receiving input signals indicating both the presence and proper polarity connection

of a vehicle battery.

��. For the reasons outlined above, the claims of each of AU�� and AU�� are inventive. The Opponent has failed to make a

case against inventive step.

CONCLUS�ON AND COSTS

��. Opposition for both �� and �� has been unsuccessful.

��. The normal approach is that costs follow the event, � see no reason to depart from this. � will award costs, according to

Schedule �, against the Opponent, Brown & Watson �nternational P/L for both �� and ��.

S.E. Howard

Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents

ANNEXURE A: AU�� CLA�MS

�. An apparatus for jump starting a vehicle having a depleted or discharged vehicle battery with positive and negative polarity

terminals, the apparatus comprising:

a power supply;

a positive polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

a negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors,

the vehicle battery isolation sensor configured to detect a presence of the vehicle battery when connected between the positive

and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors, the

reverse polarity sensor configured to detect a polarity of the vehicle battery connected between the positive and negative polarity

vehicle battery terminal connectors and to provide an output signal indicating that the positive and negative polarity terminals of

the vehicle battery are properly connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors;

a power switch connected between the power supply and the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

and

a microcontroller configured to receive input signals from the vehicle isolation sensor and the reverse polarity sensor, the

microcontroller is configured to provide an activating output signal to turn on the power switch to cause the power supply to be

connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors in response to the microcontroller receiving input

signals simultaneously from the sensors indicating both the presence and connection of the vehicle battery to the positive and

negative polarity vehicle battery connectors and proper polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the

vehicle battery with the positive and negative polarity battery terminal connectors, and the microcontroller is configured to

provide a deactivating output signal to turn oﬀ the power switch to cause the power supply to be disconnected from the positive

and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors in response to the microcontroller receiving input signals from the sensors

indicating the absence of the vehicle battery connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors and/or

improper polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle battery to the positive and negative

polarity vehicle battery connectors.

�. An apparatus for jump starting a vehicle having a depleted or discharged vehicle battery with positive and negative polarity

terminals, the apparatus comprising:

a power supply;

a positive polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

a negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors,

the vehicle battery isolation sensor configured to detect a presence of the vehicle battery when connected between the positive

and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors, the

reverse polarity sensor configured to detect a polarity of the vehicle battery connected between the positive and negative polarity

vehicle battery terminal connectors and to provide an output signal indicating that the positive and negative polarity terminals of

the vehicle battery are properly connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors;

a power switch connected between the power supply and the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

and

a microcontroller configured to receive input signals from the vehicle isolation sensor and the reverse polarity sensor, the

microcontroller configured to control operation of the power switch,

wherein the microcontroller is configured to turn on the power switch when receiving input signals from the vehicle isolation

sensor and reverse polarity sensor indicating both the presence and connection of the vehicle battery to the positive and negative

polarity vehicle battery connectors and proper polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle

battery with the positive and negative polarity battery terminal connectors, and

wherein the microcontroller is configured to turn oﬀ the power switch when receiving input signals from the sensors indicating

the absence of the vehicle battery connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors and/or improper

polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle battery to the positive and negative polarity

vehicle battery connectors.

�. An apparatus for jump starting a vehicle having a depleted or discharged vehicle battery with positive and negative polarity

terminals, the apparatus comprising:

a power supply;

a positive polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

a negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connector;

a vehicle battery isolation sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors,

the vehicle battery isolation sensor configured to detect a presence of the vehicle battery when connected between the positive

and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

a reverse polarity sensor connected in circuit with the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors, the

reverse polarity sensor configured to detect a polarity of the vehicle battery connected between the positive and negative polarity

vehicle battery terminal connectors and to provide an output signal indicating that the positive and negative polarity terminals of

the vehicle battery are properly connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors;

a power switch connected between the power supply and the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors;

and

a microcontroller configured to receive input signals from the vehicle isolation sensor and the reverse polarity sensor, the

microcontroller is configured to turn on the power switch to cause the power supply to be connected to the positive and negative

polarity vehicle battery connectors in response to the microcontroller receiving input signals simultaneously from the sensors

indicating both the presence and connection of the vehicle battery to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery

connectors and proper polarity connection of the positive and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle battery with the positive

and negative polarity battery terminal connectors, and the microcontroller is configured to turn oﬀ the power switch to prevent

the power supply from being connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors in response to the

microcontroller not receiving the input signals simultaneously from the sensors indicating both the presence and connection of

the vehicle battery to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors and proper polarity connection of the positive

and negative polarity terminals of the vehicle battery with the positive and negative polarity battery terminal connectors.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, � or �, wherein the vehicle battery isolation sensor is a separate isolation sensor configured

to detect the presence of the vehicle battery connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery connectors.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, � or �, wherein the vehicle battery isolation sensor detects presence or absence of the

vehicle battery prior to any initial connection and is not reliant upon any pre-established connection or operation of the circuit

with the positive and negative polarity battery terminal connectors.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, � or �, wherein the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors

comprise a positive polarity battery clamp and a negative polarity battery clamp.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, � or �, wherein the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors

comprise a positive polarity battery clamp connected to a positive polarity battery cable and a negative polarity battery clamp

connected to a negative polarity battery cable.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, � or �, further comprising an output port having positive and negative polarity outputs, the

output port being configured to connect with a single removable plug, the single plug being connected to the positive and

negative polarity cables.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, � or �, wherein the power supply comprises a lithium ion battery.

��. The apparatus of claim �, wherein the lithium ion battery comprises a battery pack of multiple lithium ion batteries.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, wherein the power switch comprises a plurality of FETs in parallel.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, wherein the vehicle isolation sensor and reverse polarity sensor comprise optically coupled

isolator phototransistors.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a plurality of power diodes coupled between the positive and negative

polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors and the power supply to prevent back-charging of the power supply from an

electrical system connected to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal connectors.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a temperature sensor configured to detect temperature of the power

supply and to provide a temperature signal to the microcontroller.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a voltage measurement circuit configured to measure output voltage of the

power supply and to provide a voltage measurement signal to the microcontroller.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a voltage regulator configured to convert output voltage of the power

supply to a voltage level appropriate to provide operating power to electrical components of the apparatus.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a USB output port configured to provide charging power from the power

supply to a USB-chargeable device.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a USB charging port configured to provide charging power from an external

power source to the power supply.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a flashlight circuit configured to provide a source of light to a user.

��. The apparatus of claim ��, wherein the source of light is at least one LED.

��. The apparatus of claim ��, wherein the microcontroller is configured to control the at least one LED to provide a visual alarm

indicating an emergency situation.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a plurality of visual indicators configured to display remaining capacity

status of the power supply.

��. The apparatus of claim ��, wherein said plurality of visual indicators comprises a plurality of LEDs providing output light of

diﬀerent colors.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a visual indicator configured to warn a user when a vehicle battery is

connected with reverse polarity.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising separate visual indicators configured to display the power on status of the

apparatus, and the jump start boost power status of power supplied to the positive and negative polarity vehicle battery terminal

connectors

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a manual override switch configured to activate a manual override mode

to enable a user to connect jump start power to charge the vehicle battery when the vehicle battery isolation sensor is unable to

detect presence of the vehicle battery.

��. The apparatus of claim ��, wherein said microcontroller is configured to detect actuation of the manual override switch for at

least a predetermined period of time before activation of the manual override mode.

��. The apparatus of claim �, � or �, further comprising a jumper cable device including a plug configured to plug into an output

port of the apparatus, a pair of battery cables integrated with the plug at one respective end thereof and being configured to be

connected to terminals of the vehicle battery at another respective end thereof.

��. The apparatus of claim ��, wherein the jumper cable device further comprises a pair of ring terminals configured to

respectively connect the pair of battery cables at another end thereof with either the positive and negative polarity vehicle

battery terminals or the positive or negative polarity battery clamps.

��. The apparatus of claim ��, wherein the output port and the plug are dimensioned so that the plug will fit into the output port

only in one specific orientation.

ANNEXURE B: AU�� CLA�MS

�. A jump starter apparatus for boosting or charging a depleted or discharged battery having a positive battery terminal and a

negative battery terminal, the apparatus comprising:

a power supply;

a positive battery connector for connecting the jump starter apparatus to the positive battery terminal of the depleted or

discharged battery;

a negative battery connector for connecting the jump starter apparatus to the negative battery terminal of the depleted or

discharged battery;

a power switch connected in circuit with the power supply and the positive and negative battery connectors, the power switch

configured to turn power on or oﬀ from the power supply to the positive and negative battery connectors;

a control system or circuit connected to and controlling the power switch, the control system or circuit configured to detect

presence of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors and to

detect polarity of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors;

wherein the control system or circuit switches on the power switch to connect the power supply to the depleted or discharged

battery only when the depleted or discharged battery is present and properly connected between the positive and negative

battery connectors and the depleted or discharged battery is properly connected with a correct polarity between the positive and

negative battery terminals.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, wherein the control system or circuit does not switch on the power switch to connect the

power supply to the depleted or discharged battery when the control system or circuit detects either that (i) the depleted or

discharged battery is absent or not connected between the positive and negative battery connectors or (ii) the depleted or

discharged battery is not connected with a correct polarity between the positive and negative battery terminals.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, wherein the control system or circuit is configured to detect presence of the depleted or

discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors and to detect polarity of the depleted

or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors prior to turning power on from the

power supply to the depleted or discharged battery.

�. The apparatus according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the control system or circuit comprises a microcontroller

configured for providing an output controlling the power switch.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, wherein the microcontroller receives input from one or more sensors configured to detect

presence of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors and to

detect polarity of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors.

�. The apparatus according to claim �, wherein the one or more sensors includes one sensor configured to detect presence of the

depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors, and another sensor

configured to detect polarity of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery

connectors

�. The apparatus according to claim � or claim �, wherein the one or more sensors comprises one or more sensing circuits.

�. The apparatus according to any one of claims � to �, wherein the microcontroller switches the power switch on to provide

power from the power supply to the depleted or discharged battery only when the depleted or discharged battery is determined

by the microcontroller to be present and connected with the correct polarity.

�. The apparatus according to any one of claims � to �, wherein the microcontroller is a programmable microcontroller configured

to allow updates in functionality and system parameters.

��. The apparatus according to claim �, wherein the programmable microcontroller comprises a memory.

��. The apparatus according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the positive battery connector comprises a positive

battery cable and the negative battery connector comprises a negative battery cable, and wherein the positive battery cable

comprises a positive battery clamp and the negative battery cable comprises a negative battery clamp.

��. The apparatus according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the power supply comprises a lithium ion battery

disposed within the jump starting apparatus, and wherein the lithium ion battery comprises a battery pack comprising multiple

lithium ion batteries.

��. The apparatus according to any one of the preceding claims, wherein the power switch comprises a plurality of FETs arranged

in parallel.

��. The apparatus according to claim �, or any one of claims � to �� when appended to claim �, wherein the one sensor is a

depleted or discharged battery presence sensor and the other sensor is a reverse polarity sensor.

��. The apparatus according to claim ��, wherein the presence sensor and the reverse polarity sensor comprise optically coupled

isolator phototransistors.

��. The apparatus according to any one of the preceding claims, further comprising a USB charging port configured to provide

charging power from an external power source to the power supply.

��. The apparatus according to claim ��, further comprising a USB charging circuit connecting the USB charging port to the power

supply.

��. The apparatus according to claim ��, wherein the USB charging circuit comprises a DC-DC converter.

��. The apparatus according to claim ��, wherein the DC-DC converter is configured to convert �V potential provided from a USB

charger to ��.�VDC

��. The apparatus according to claim �� or ��, wherein the DC-DC converter is configured to be turned on and oﬀ via a circuit by an

output from a microcontroller.

��. A jump starter apparatus for boosting or charging a depleted or discharged battery having a positive battery terminal and a

negative battery terminal, the apparatus comprising:

a power supply;

a positive battery connector for connecting the jump starter apparatus to the positive battery terminal of the depleted or

discharged battery;

a negative battery connector for connecting the jump starter apparatus to the negative battery terminal of the depleted or

discharged battery;

a power switch connected in circuit with the power supply and the positive and negative battery connectors, the power switch

configured to turn power on or oﬀ from the power supply to the positive and negative battery connectors;

a control system or circuit connected to and controlling the power switch, the control system or circuit configured to detect

presence of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors and to

detect polarity of the depleted or discharged battery when connected between the positive and negative battery connectors;

wherein the control system or circuit switches on the power switch to cause the power supply to be connected to the depleted or

discharged battery when, and only when, the depleted or discharged battery is present and properly connected between the

positive and negative battery connectors and the depleted or discharged battery is properly connected with a correct polarity

between the positive and negative battery terminals.

ANNEXURE C: Figures �A

Graphical user interface, applicationDescription automatically generated

Graphical user interfaceDescription automatically generated

Graphical user interface, applicationDescription automatically generated

[�]

AU�� at [��]-[��] & [��]-[��].

[�]

�bid.

[�]

AU�� at [��]-[��].

[�]

AU�� at [��]-[��].

[�]

AU�� at [��]-[��].

[�]