- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Amit Bansal
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal for want of inventive step set aside and the application remanded. The order noted the prior art documents but gave no reasoning as to how they covered the claimed invention, and reached a bare conclusion despite detailed replies to the First Examination Report and the hearing notice. Following Agriboard International, the Court reiterated that in rejecting an application for lack of inventive step the Controller must address three elements: what the prior art discloses, what the application discloses, and how the invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art. Without that analysis the rejection is contrary to section 2(1)(ja) itself.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.