- Case number
- (T)CMA(PT) 180/2023
- Court
- Madras High Court
- Date of judgment
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Both grounds of refusal failed. On inventive step the Controller merely extracted the cited documents without considering the explanations offered in reply to the First Examination Report or at the hearing. On section 59 he set 'the use of a lubricated polyamide for the preparation of articles by injection moulding' against 'a method of preparing an article comprising injection moulding the article using a lubricated polyamide' and held that 'method' expanded the scope of 'use'. Section 59 is not a tool for misreading an applicant's language; the comparison is of substance.
Disposition
Allowed. Matter remanded for de novo consideration of the amended claims by a different Controller.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.