- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) No.185 of 2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Allowed
Headnote
Refusal under sections 3(i) and 3(j) set aside. The claim had been amended from a transgenic non-human mammal to a nucleic acid molecule, which took the section 3(j) objection away, yet the Controller never discussed the amended claims and merely extracted the claims as filed and at the First Examination Report stage. The section 3(j) objection had not been raised at the earliest point in any event. On section 3(i) the order concluded the invention was only a vaccination method with no discussion or reasoning at all, and on inventive step neither discussion nor reasons were given. Since nucleic acid was clearly disclosed in the specification, the amendment was not beyond the scope of the original claim and section 59 could not be held against the applicant.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice.