As Mr. Bennett states in the article, prior to the new decision:
the governing precedent was Grant v Commissioner of Patents . Grant stood for the proposition that a method must produce “a physical effect in the sense of a concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation.”
In the new case, the Australian Patent Office:
has qualified the “physical effect” requirement by now making it clear that the physical effect must be “central to the purpose or operation of the claimed process or otherwise arises…in a substantial way”.
For the full text of the article and more information, visit the Pizzeys Australian Patent Law Blog by clicking here.