JUDGMENT :

(Ravi Krishan Kapur, J.) :

1. This is an appeal under section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Act) challenging an order dated 24 August 2022 passed by the respondent rejecting Patent Application No. 201737035802 filed in India on 9 October 2017 for an invention titled “CHARGING SYSTEM AND CHARGING METHOD, AND POWER ADAPTER”.

2. The appellant is a leading electronics manufacturer inter alia engaged in developing, manufacturing and marketing communication equipment. The major products manufactured by the appellant include smart-phones, smart devices, audio devices, power banks, and other electronic products. The appellant has a global presence and has been granted patent for the subject invention in different jurisdictions around the world.

3. Briefly, the subject invention relates to a power adapter for a mobile terminal such as smart phone. The subject invention enables a voltage with a pulsating waveform (i.e., third voltage with a ripple waveform) output by a power adapter to be applied to a battery of the mobile terminal directly, thereby realising miniaturization and cost-efficiency of the power adapter while prolonging the service life of a battery. The power adapter has several electronic components including first rectifier, a switch unit, a transformer, a second rectifier, a first charging interface, a sampling unit and a control unit. The device generates a first ripple waveform, thereafter, a second ripple waveform and eventually a third ripple waveform. The arrangement of the components and the generation of ripple waveform in multiple stages enables the elimination of an electrolytic capacitator. The elimination of the capacitator also helps to reduce the size of the power adapter as well as reduce the cost of the adapter. Apart from these benefits, the charger in the subject invention has an additional benefit of maintaining a moderate temperature by not allowing the build-up of temperature and thereby allows reliability, safety and service life of the battery. Such advantages and benefits are achieved by the use of, inter alia, a first rectifier, a switch unit, a transformer, a second rectifier, a first charging interface, a sampling unit, and a control unit. As a result, the voltage with the ripple waveform output by the power adapter directly applies to the battery.

4. It is contended that the subject invention allows faster charging rate and lowers cost the while maintaining safety. The arrangement of components in the subject invention results in the generation of a ripple waveform of electric current in multiple stages that enables the elimination of an electrolytic capacitor which tends to generate heat by constant voltage supply. Instead, the charging system comprises of rectifiers and charging interfaces resulting in a rippled waveform of electricity. The elimination of the capacitor allows the adapter to be smaller and decreases heat emission by making it cost effective.

5. By the impugned order, the patent application has been rejected on the ground that the same is inter-alia not patentable under section 2(1)(j) and section 10(4) of the Act.

6. It is contended that the impugned order is a non-speaking order inasmuch as there are no reasons. It is also submitted that the respondent has failed to appreciate that the objections on the ground of lack of novelty and lack of inventive steps cannot stem from the same document. It is also alleged that the impugned order uses the words “novel” and “inventive” interchangeably without appreciating the meaning and content thereof. It is also contended that two additional prior arts D5 and D6 were cited for the first time at the hearing notice without giving any opportunity to the appellant to respond or make amendments to the same. The appellant was also not granted any opportunity to dispute the alleged insufficiency of disclosure under section 10(4) of the Act with regard to the term “transformer” which was only raised for the first time at the hea