- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT)/59/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal set aside because the operative portion of the order rested entirely on a prior art document that appeared neither in the First Examination Report nor in the hearing notice and was referred to for the first time in the course of the hearing. That ground alone sufficed, without examining the rest of the order. On the separate objection to sufficiency, the Court observed that if the Controller considers the disclosure inadequate it is always open to him to call upon the applicant to amend the complete specification, in consonance with section 59, so as to provide greater disclosure, section 59 permitting amendment in respect of matter in substance disclosed before the amendment. The applicant had also shown that the cited documents were classified as category A, not of particular relevance, in the International Search Report, and that the invention had been granted in the United States and before the European Patent Office, the only difference being use claims that had to be omitted under Indian law.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.