SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1480

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Rosemount Inc – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Controller of Patents And Designs – Respondent
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 97 of 2022
Decided On : 28-04-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Anju Agrawal, Mr. Deepak Singh and Mr. Vardhman Jain, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhry, Senior Panel Counsel, for the Respondent.

The Controller must provide proper reasoning for rejecting a patent application and consider the applicant's submissions, failing which violates the principles of natural justice.

Headnote:

Patents - Lack of Inventive Step - Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 - Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(ja), Section 10(5), Section 15 - WO0120267 (D1), GB2399641 (D2), US5606513 (D3), US4677841 (D4)

Fact of the Case:

The appellant filed a patent application for a 'Process Device with Density Measurement' which was rejected by the Controller citing lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) and Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act. The appellant argued that the rejection lacked proper reasoning and failed to consider their submissions distinguishing the subject invention from prior art.

Finding of the Court:

The Controller's order lacked proper reasoning and failed to consider the appellant's submissions, violating the principles of natural justice. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration, directing them to pass a reasoned order within four months.

Issues: Lack of proper reasoning in the Controller's order, failure to consider appellant's submissions, violation of principles of natural justice.

Ratio Decidendi: The Controller must provide proper reasoning for rejecting a patent application and consider the applicant's submissions. Failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice.

Final Decision: The impugned order rejecting the patent application is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Patent Office for fresh consideration. The Patent Office is directed to pass a reasoned order within four months.

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970 impugning the order dated 7th July, 2017 passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs in the Indian Patent Application No. 1055/DELNP/2009 (hereinafter "subject application") filed on 12th February, 2009 for the invention titled "Process Device with Density Measurement" (hereinafter "subject invention").

2. Brief facts relevant to decide the present appeal are as follows:

2.1 The appellant had filed the subject application on 12th February, 2009 at the Patent Office, New Delhi, claiming priority from 29th August, 2006 based on a US patent application 11/511584, which was subsequently granted as US7461562 on 9th December, 2008.

2.2 A request for examination was filed on 18th February, 2009 and the patent application was published under Section 11A of the Act on 31st July, 2009. Subsequently, the Patent Application was examined by the Controller and a First Examination Report (FER) was issued on 22nd August 2014. The FER essentially contained objections, inter alia, that claims of the subject application were not patentable in terms of Section 2(1)(j), Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 10(5) of the Act.

2.3 A detailed response was filed on behalf of the appellant to the aforesaid FER on 15th April, 2014 along with a set of amended claims addressing the objections raised in the FER.

2.4 On 10th March, 2017, a hearing notice was issued by the Controller fixing the date of hearing for 24th May, 2017, wherein once again, an objection was taken with regard to lack of inventive steps in view of the cited prior art documents. Response to the aforesaid hearing notice was filed along with a set of amended claims, in respect of the objections raised in the hearing notice, on 22nd May, 2017.

3. On 7th July, 2017, the impugned order was passed by the Controller rejecting the patent application filed by the appellant on the ground of lack of inventive steps under Section 2(1)(j) read with Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act, in view of the cited prior art references, WO0120267 (D1), GB2399641 (D2), US5606513 (D3) and US4677841 (D4). The relevant portion of the impugned order is set out below:

    "2. Claims 1-24 lack Novelty u/s 2(1)(j) of the Act as being anticipated by following documents:

    D-1 WO0120267 (A1), D2 - GB2399641 (A) D3-US5606513 (A)

    D1 discloses a flow device (100) including a differential flow plate (108) insertable into a flow path between pipe sections (58-1, 582) including a flow conduit (110) supporting a flow interrupter (112) and differential pressure taps (114, 116). The flow conduit (110) including a seamless interface (154) between the flow interrupter (112) and the pressure taps (114, 116) to reduce non- attributable pressure loss between differential pressure taps (114, 116) as well as reduce field installation labor including that of pressure testing the various pressure couplings.

    D2 discloses a method and apparatus are provided for determining the gas flow rate of a gas-liquid mixture which has a gas volume fraction (GVF) of at least 85% and which is conveyed along a conduit. The conduit is fitted with a differential pressure flow meter and a fluid densitonmeter. The method comprises: measuring the pressure difference across the differential pressure flow meter and measuring the density of the mixture using the densitometer; estimating the GVF of the mixture from the measured density; and calculating the gas flow rate from the measured pressure difference and measured density. A corrective term which comprises the estimated GVF is used in the calculation to correct the gas flow rate for the high GVF value of the mixture.

    D3 discloses a two-wire transmitter senses a pressure using an internal pressure sensor. The transmitter includes an input for receiving a process variable from a remote sensor which is separated from the transmitter. Circuitry in the transmitters transmits information on a two-wire process control

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top