- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 75/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
A section 3(k) refusal was set aside on an arithmetical tell: the order recited the examiner's observations on claims 11 to 14 when only eleven amended claims had been filed, so those claims no longer existed and the amended set had plainly never been looked at. Beyond recording the conclusion that section 3(k) was not complied with, the Controller never dealt with the response to the First Examination Report or with the submissions on the scope of the provision.
Disposition
Set aside and remanded for reconsideration, without any opinion on the merits.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.