M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Petitioner has focused the instant Writ Petition before this Court praying for calling of the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st Respondent in ORA/3/2007/PT/CH dated 17.04.2009 by confirming the Patent granted to the 3rd Respondent in Patent No.204322 by the 2nd Respondent.

2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the order of the 1st Respondent/Appellate Board dated 17.04.2009 is against Law, Facts, weight of evidence and all probabilities of the case. Further, it is the stand of the Petitioner that the 3rd Respondent had obtained the 'Patent' in his favour by suppressing the material fact, which was brought to the knowledge of the 1st Respondent/Board by the Petitioner through documentary evidence, which was not appreciated in proper and real perspective.

3. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to take a stand that the 3rd Respondent had fraudulently filed an Application for Patent on 14.09.2004 keeping the entire technology of the Applicant, but making little variation in respect of studs and the filter and ultimately managed to obtain a Patent.

4. Moreover, it is represented on behalf of the Petitioner that the subject matter of the Patent was available to the public openly by way of the machine manufactured by him, for revocation, inasmuch as he is manufacturing some threshing machine and marking such identical machine even prior to the filing of the Application for the grant of Patent and in short, the subject matter of the Patent was identical or similar to the invention claimed in his Application No.455/MAS/2000.

5. Advancing his arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the 'Inventive Step' in the present Patent issue is that providing helical path for the crop during threshing operations, ensured by the helical thresher cover which is the subject matter in both the Patent Applications (filed by the Petitioner and the 3rd Respondent).

6. Expatiating his submission, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner takes a plea that the 3rd Respondent's Patent was completely anticipated by means of prior claim anticipation, by prior publication and prior public knowledge in view of the fact that the Petitioner was manufacturing the aforestated machine from the year 2000.

7. In this connection, the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner projects a legal argument that when the Patent is anticipated by prior public knowledge and prior publication as aforestated, then, the Patent granted to the 3rd Respondent is liable to be revoked under Section 64(e) of the Indian Patents Act,1970.

8. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contends that the Patent granted in respect of the 3rd Respondent is completely similar or identical to the subject matter claimed in earlier Application filed by the Petitioner bearing Patent No.455/MIAS/2000.

9. That apart, the invention claimed by the 3rd Respondent Patent was fully anticipated by prior public knowledge and also referred to many advertisements published in various Tamil Dailies from the year 2000 till the date of filing of the Application for Patent by the 3rd Respondent.

10. Besides the above, it is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the 1st Respondent/Board, without properly appreciating the factual aspects and legal position of the subject matter in issue, had simpliciter dismissed the Petitioner's Revocation Application based on the reason that there is a Novelty in the invention of the 3rd Respondent.

11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the ingredients of Section 3(f) of the Patents Act, 1970 clearly enjoins that 'the mere arrangement or rearrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way' and therefore, the 3rd Respondent's claimed Patent is only a mere arrangement or re-arrangement