- Case number
- C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 114/2022
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Date of judgment
- Judge
- Sanjeev Narula
- Outcome
- Remanded
Headnote
Refusal under section 15 for want of inventive step and sufficiency set aside and remanded. On section 10(4), the Court held that the mere absence of working examples does not render an application liable for rejection: section 10(4)(b) requires the applicant to disclose the best method of performing the invention known to him, which had been done, and the Controller insisted on working examples and rejected summarily without elaborating any reasons. On section 2(1)(ja), the two cited prior arts proposed significantly different teachings and addressed different problems, so a person skilled in the art could not realistically combine them, and it was inappropriate for the Controller to mosaic two substantially unrelated prior arts to invalidate the claim. The impugned order also reproduced the hearing notice objections verbatim without referring to the applicant's response, and contained no discussion of how the combination would be obvious.
Headnote by BRB Legal, written from the judgment: a summary for reference, not legal advice. Read the judgment itself before relying on it.