- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 17/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
An order that merely listed the elements of the claimed invention and concluded that it would be obvious to a normal technical engineer was held effectively unreasoned. The Court then examined the prior art itself and found the two features the invention turned on, a crank offset between each piston and its crankshaft and rotation of the two crankshafts in opposite directions, in none of the cited documents, with no teaching, suggestion or motivation to supply them. Those features had been introduced at the written submissions stage after the oral hearing, and because they were recited as an option in the complete specification the amendment was within scope and allowable under section 59. Even so the Court declined to direct grant, since prior art on the newly claimed features had never been examined and its own survey suggested further relevant art might exist.
Disposition
Disposed of. Impugned order set aside and the application remanded on the limited aspect of the newly claimed features.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.