- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 121/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- P. B. Balaji
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Remand on both grounds of refusal. The order never referred to the feature the invention turned on, a double population of large and small pores, which appeared in none of the four cited documents, and on section 3(e) it never examined which substances were said to form the admixture. The synergistic effect objection, raised in the First Examination Report and then virtually given up at the hearing stage, was revived in the order itself, taking the applicant by surprise.
Disposition
Allowed. Matter remitted for fresh consideration by a different Patent Controller.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.