- Case number
- CMA(PT) 8/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Three grounds of refusal, each answered on the record. The paragraphs of the specification setting out the process were never referred to, the claim itself gave the numerical range said to be missing, and the obviousness conclusion was drawn with no reference to any prior art at all. Where a range seems too wide or a term undefined, the Controller can call for an amendment.
Disposition
Set aside and the application remanded for re-consideration. No opinion expressed 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.