ORDER :- The opponents have preferred this appeal against the order and decision dated 5th July, 1980 of the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, dismissing the opposition to the grant of patent and directing the Complete Specification to be amended as indicated in the said order.

2. On 28-3-1971 one Noshir Edulji Pochkhanawalla made an application numbered 130620 for registration of a Patent for an invention relating to "Improvement in or relating to Mufflers or Exhaust Silencers for Internal Combustion Engines" along with provisional specifications. On 14-6-1971 the applicant filed complete specifications. The application was accepted by the Controller of Patents and the acceptance was notified in the Gazette of India dated 19-8-1972. The petitioners filed notice of opposition under S.25 of the Patents Act, 1970. On 10-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply to the Notice of Opposition and on 26-2-1973 the applicant filed his reply - Statement. On or about 21st June 1973 the said Noshir Edulji Pochkhanawalla died leaving a Will whereby he appointed the 1st Respondent as Executor. The 1st respondent obtained probate of the Will and the 1st Respondent was substituted as applicant. The 1st Respondent filed his affidavit affirmed on 15th April 1975 adopting the written statement of the deceased Noshir Edulji Pochkhanawala and evidence in support of the application for patent.

3. It appears that the petitioners did not file their evidence in time and even before the extended period which was up to 10th Dec. 1975. The hearing was, therefore, fixed on the application of the 1st Respondent on April, 26, 1976. On that day the petitioners filed affidavit of Shri G.K. Parekh, Engineering Manager of the Petitioners, and relied upon the exhibits annexed to that affidavit in support of the opposition. The petitioners also applied for extension of time for production of the evidence. The controller fixed May 27, 1976 for the hearing of the said application. But curciously heard the main application of the 1st Respondent on 26th and 27th April, 1976 and the judgment was reserved. The Controller passed an order on May 27, 1976, rejecting the grounds of opposition and granting the application. It appears that the Controller also dismissed the application of the Petitioners for extension of time to file their evidence. Against the said orders, the Petitioners preferred Petitions Nos. 250 and 251 of 1977 in this Court. Pendse, J. set aside the impugned orders by order dated 21st Jan. 1980 and remanded the proceedings to the Asstt. Controller of Patents and Designs to determine the matter afresh after taking the affidavit of Shri G.K. Parekh affirmed on April 26, 1976 on record as evidence in support of the opposition. Therefore, the matter was heard afresh and the said impugned order dated 5th July, 1980 was passed.

4. Shri Daruwalla has submitted that the Controller was in error in rejecting the grounds of opposition. He has taken me through the records of the case and he has submitted that the invention as claimed by the inventor in the claim of complete specification has been published before priority date of the claim : secondly that the invention was publicly known and publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim : thirdly that the claim is not an invention at all and it does not contain any inventive step; fourthly that the alleged invention is obvious : fifthly that the claim is not a novelty: sixthly that the complete specification does not sufficiently and clearly describe the invention nor does it sufficiently and clearly describe the method by which it is to be performed; and seventhly that it is incorrect to state that the first respondent's invention is a combination.

5. Shri Daruwalla has also submitted that the order of the Controller passed on 5th July, 1980 amending claim 1 of the complete specification, so as to make it more clear and specific to clearly bring out the characterising features of the invention a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document