( 1 ) THIS first appeal under Section 116 of the Patents Act. 1970 is directed against the order dated 8th March, 1984 of the Asstt. Controller of Patents and Designs, New Delhi (hereinafter called controller ) whereby application Patent No. 342/del/so of the appellant filed on 9th May, 1980 for grant of patent in respect of a process of manufacture was rejected. During the course of hearing before the Controller the statement of claims was amended and reamended and the final statement of claim reads as under:

"statement of claims: 1. A process, for opacifying a gaseous medium, transparent to optical thermal radiation, the optical and infrared (IR) bands of electromagnetic waves spectrum comprising diffusing in the said medium a boron trichloride aerosol, at a delivery rate suffic ent to attenuate electromagnetic radiations extending from 0 4 to 15 urn to an extent greater than 90% 2. The process as claimed in claim I wherein said aerosol is stored, in liquid form, in u receptacle comprising means for diffusing said aerosol. 3. The process as claimed in elaim I, wherein said aerosol is stored, in a gaseous form, in a receptacle comprising means for diffusing said aerosol. 4. The process as claimed in claims I, wherein said gaseous medium is formed by the atmosphere. 5. The process as claimed in claim I wherein said gaseous medium is formed by the output flow from a propulsion system. 6. The process as claimed in claim I wherein said boron trichioride aerosol is diffused in the presence of sufficient water vapour to hydrolyze the boron trichloride. 7. The process as claimed in claim 6, wherein said aerosol and the water from which said water vapour is obtained stored separately in receptacle and are dispersed conjointly. 8. A process for opacifying a gaseous medium, transparent to optical and thermal radiation in the optical and infrared (IR) bands of the electromagnetic wave spectrum substantially as herein described". Page 7 of the impugned order shows that the attorney for the appellant had cancelled earlier statements of claims and as such the learned/counsel for the appellant has limited his appeal to the rejection of patent claim in respect of the above reproduced statement of claims only.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has urged that the Controller has misdirected himself and has ignored the provisions of Section 5 of the Patents Act, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) while rejecting the claim of the appellant. I have been taken through the order and various provisions of the Act by him. Section 6 of the Act confers a right to apply for Patents and reads as under :

"section 6. Persons entitled to apply for patents- (1) Subject to the provisions contained in Section 14 an application for a patent for an invention may be made by any of the following persons, that is to say,- (a) by any person claiming to be the true and first inventor of the invention; (b) by any person being the assignee of the person claiming to be the true and first inventor in respect of the right to make such an application; (e) by the legal representative of any deceased person who immediately before his death was entitled to make such an applica- tion. (2) An application under sub-section (1) may be made by any of the persons referred to there in either alone or jointly with any other person". This section shows that a true and first inventor, his assignee or legal representative can file an application for a patent for his invention. What is an invention has been defined in Section 2 (i) (j) of the Act which reads as under:

"section 2 (i) (j) "invention" means any new and useful :- (i) art, process, method or manner of manufacture ; (ii) machine, apparatus or other article ; (iii) Substance produced by manufacture, and includes any new and useful improvement of any of them, and an alleged invention";reading of Section 2 (iand j) confirms that even any new and useful, art, process, method or manner of manufacture qualifies as an i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document