- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Direction to grant
Headnote
Refusal set aside and the application for a system associating command services with multiple active components directed to proceed to grant on amended claims. Applying the Windsurfing and Pozzoli steps, the Court first held the newly cited prior art to be non-analogous. On the remaining art, D1 described a commanding system in which input flows inward from input devices through commanding nodes and tables of bindings to a command handler, whereas the claimed invention dispersed commands outward from a single shared command surface to different unrelated applications through their components. Although both systems handle multiple inputs or commands, their mode of operation differed markedly, and it would not be obvious to a person skilled in the art armed with D1 to arrive at a shared command surface serving unrelated applications.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.