Back
Sets Aside Patent Rejection For CO2 Capture Device Citing Unreasoned Controller Order
The has set aside an order of the Assistant Controller of Patents rejecting 's patent application for a carbon dioxide capture device, finding the rejection "." The matter has been remanded for fresh consideration within three months.
A Green Innovation Caught in Procedural Quicksand
, a company with 25 years of experience in green technologies, filed its Indian national phase application on
, for an invention titled
"Carbon Dioxide Capture Device and Method."
The application traced priority through two US applications filed in
and
, and a PCT application filed in
. Filing of the appeal was delayed by four months and ten days, which the court condoned.
The patent application comprised 71 claims—claims 1 through 24 covering a method of capturing CO2, and claims 25 through 71 covering the corresponding system. The claimed invention uses amine-free water at subsonic speeds, with droplets smaller than 50 microns, at pressures between 700 and 2000 psi—features the company argued sharply distinguish it from .
Two Grounds of Rejection, Zero Analysis
Following a First Examination Report (FER) issued on , a hearing on , and written submissions on , the Controller rejected the application on . Two grounds weighed against the applicant: lack of under based on D1, and lack of under in light of prior arts D1 through D6.
Challenging the order before Justice Jyoti Singh, senior counsel argued that even without examining technical merits, the order deserved to be set aside. Anand contended that although the order ran over 15 pages, approximately three-fourths of it merely reproduced FER objections, extracted claims, and referenced prior arts. The Controller, he argued, drew conclusions without any discussion or analysis whatsoever. The invention, he explained, departs from amine-based capture technology and instead relies on water in a novel nozzle configuration—an approach entirely absent from D1.
The Controller's Terse Defense
, SPC appearing for the , defended the rejection, arguing that D1 disclosed every element of independent claims 1 and 25. He pointed to D1's teaching that CO2 can be absorbed using either chilled water or amine solutions, suggesting the contemplates amine-free capture. Nagpal further submitted that once fails, necessarily follows, and that D3-D6 would together motivate a to arrive at the claimed invention.
A Rejection at Odds with Established Law
The court sided decisively with the appellant.
"After elaborating in two pages on the teachings of prior arts, Respondent concludes in one line that D1 discloses features of independent claim 1 and claim 25,"
Justice Singh observed. Similarly, on
, the Controller merely asserted that a
would be motivated by D1 and D3-D6, without explaining how.
"Regrettably, none of these issues even find mention in the impugned order leave alone their consideration,"
the court noted.
The court invoked the five-step test for laid down by the Division Bench in , and the three-element framework from —examining what the discloses, what the application discloses, and how a moves from existing knowledge to the claimed invention. The court also recalled , where the held that reasons must be recorded even in administrative decisions that adversely affect individuals.
"A Cursory or Callous Manner"
Perhaps most significant was the court's broader observation on the importance of proper scrutiny in patent matters:
"I am of the view that applications for inventions cannot be rejected in such a cursory or callous manner, as many of the genuine inventions may be beneficial in public interest."
The court also noted that Enviro's response to the FER and its written submissions contained a detailed matrix of alleged differences between the claimed invention and the —submissions that the Controller entirely failed to address.
Fresh Consideration Within Three Months
The appeal was partially allowed. The court set aside the order and directed the Assistant Controller to reconsider Enviro's patent application afresh—taking into account the response to the FER and the written submissions, and granting an opportunity of hearing. The fresh decision must be rendered within three months.
