- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 108/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Amit Bansal
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal for lack of novelty and inventive step set aside on both grounds. On novelty a feature-by-feature comparison showed the cited document disclosed neither the depressed cladding, nor its refractive index being lower than that of the outer cladding, nor the presence of both dopants in the core and the depressed cladding alike, nor the control of dopant concentration so as to give a continuous variation and a continuous derivative with respect to fibre radius; the cited document therefore failed to disclose all the features of the claimed invention. On inventive step the order gave no reasons at all, merely referring back to the hearing notice, with no independent analysis. Following Agriboard International, in rejecting an invention for lack of inventive step the Controller must consider three elements: the invention disclosed in the prior art, the invention disclosed in the application, and the manner in which the claimed invention would be obvious to the person skilled in the art. Without a discussion of those three a bare conclusion is impermissible, since section 2(1)(ja) itself requires the Controller to analyse what the existing knowledge is and how the skilled person would move from it to the claimed invention.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.