- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal set aside and the application remanded. On section 59 the Controller had concluded that the amendments were not allowable because they were nowhere disclosed in the pre-amendment claims, without giving reasons. Examining the claims itself, the Court found that the amended independent claim combined elements of several original claims and so fell wholly within their scope, and that the other amended claims corresponded to original claims, so the requirements of section 59 were met even on the stricter reading of its limbs. On inventive step the Controller had reproduced passages from the prior art and recorded a conclusion without examining the appellant's extensive reasons in reply to the First Examination Report and in written submissions.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.