Informed decision-making and due application of mind are essential in adjudicating patent applications, and unreasonable delay in patent grant can discourage inventors.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

1. This appeal assails the order dated 29th January 2021 whereby Application No. 6570/DELNP/2009, of the appellant, has been rejected by the Assistant Controller of Patents.

2. I am constrained to observe that the impugned order, to say the least, most unsatisfactorily drawn up - it is hardly possible to treat it as written or drafted. To illustrate why I am constrained to express my anguish thus, I deem it appropriate to place the impugned order on record in the form of a screenshot thus:

3. It is impossible to understand, from the impugned order, where the reference to the claims begins, what part refers to the FER and where one is to find the reasoning of the Assistant Controller. In fact, in para 6 of the impugned order, a full page has been devoted to what appears to be a part of a diagram which has been cut and pasted by the Assistant Controller apparently for no reason whatsoever.

4. Let us try to deconstruct the impugned order. Para 1 is formal. Para 2 cuts and pastes the objection which was found outstanding from those in the First Examination Report (FER), as communicated to the appellant by the Controller. Para 4 first reproduces the claim in the patent application and, thereafter, sets out the response of the appellant thereto. Para 5 initially records the observation of the Assistant Controller that he did not "find the submission persuasive" in view of the reasons which follow. What follows, however, is only the claim of the appellant in its application. Para 6, thereafter, starts with the reassuring comment that the "oral argument and written submission of the agent of the appellant have been carefully considered". Thereafter, however, the impugned order first reproduces the objection in the FER relating to Section 3(k) of the Patents Act- which was, incidentally, not found "outstanding" in the notice of hearing, which merely sought the appellant's response relating to Section 2(1)(ja). It then reproduces part of the drawing of the apparatus in question, with neither prelude nor preface, and with no clarification why it does so. The diagram too, incidentally, is not reproduced in full and, as reproduced, makes no sense whatsoever. Then follows the single sentence which may, if at all, be regarded as "reasoning" in the impugned order:

"Here the apparatus explained have no physical presence but only a method of programming as seen above (204, 222, 212) etc."

Here, again, there is no reason forthcoming, whatsoever, for this finding. The impugned order, thereafter, sets out "VUI parameters" for the claimed invention, followed by a cut-and-paste reproduction of the objections regarding Section 2(1)(ja) as contained in the notice of hearing and the FER. Three prior arts, denoted as D1, D2 and again D1, are referred to therein. There is no reference, whatsoever, to the appellant's explanation in response to the objections, and the order concludes, laconically, with the comment that "the substantive requirement of the Patents Act, 1970 i.e. section 2(1)(j) are not found complied with". In so holding, the Assistant Controller also seems to have overlooked the fact that the objection was predicated not on Section 2(1)(j) but on Section 2(1)(ja). The application is ultimately rejected on the ground of Section 3(k)- which finds no place in the notice of hearing issued to the appellant - and Section 2(1)(j), which was never invoked at any stage.

5. Ms. Vindhya S. Mani is correct in her submission that the only single sentence in the impugned order of ten pages which can be likened to any kind of reasoning is this:

"Here the apparatus explained have no physical presence but only a method of programming as seen above (204, 222, 212) etc."

6. Apart from the aforesaid sentence, there is no reasoning in the entire impugned order.

7. The Assistant Controller appears to be thoroughly confused both as to the nature of the claim for which the application was made as well as objections raised in the FER and in the