- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Set aside
Headnote
Refusal set aside and the application for a method of detecting inclusions in diamonds directed to proceed to grant, subject to amendment of claim 1 and deletion of claim 4. On obviousness, the Controller had reasoned with hindsight: there was no discernible link between the two groups of prior art, the document relied on as a bridge taught away, and the notional team would not have combined them. On section 3(d), the second limb excludes claims to a new use of a known substance, and a method claim that immerses a diamond in molten selenium is not a monopoly claim over selenium, so the exclusion did not apply. A request to narrow substantially comprising selenium to consisting of selenium could not be refused for delay once inventive step was established. Claim 4 was rejected as insufficiently enabled.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.