- Case number
- AID No. 15 of 2022
- Court
- Calcutta High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Ravi Krishan Kapur
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal set aside on several grounds, the most significant concerning amendments the Controller had himself recommended. Where the Controller suggests or recommends amendments in respect of prior art, it is natural to assume he is well versed with those recommendations so that they do not coincide with other prior art; once the amendments are carried out there is little room for further re-examination and fresh citations. The Controller ought to advise an applicant with a view to making the application eligible for grant rather than with the aim of rejecting it, and where an application has been rectified in conformity with his recommendations it is fair to assume it would be allowed unless it fails the requirements of the Act. Suggestions for amendment must not be made in order to harass an applicant by then raising new prior art. The Court also held that citing two new prior art documents in the hearing notice violated section 13(3) and altered the entire character of the examination; that the tests for novelty and obviousness are entirely different and can never coexist in respect of the same document, novelty being defeated only by a single prior published document containing a clear description and an enabling disclosure; that written submissions filed under Rule 28(7) were disregarded; and that the order was bereft of reasons, reasons being the manifestation of the decision maker's analysis.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.