Back
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
Rhodia Operations, 40, rue de la Haie Coq, F-93306 Aubervilliers, France – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Building, G. S. T. Road, Guindy, Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. patent application and its rejection details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding novelty and inventive step. (Para 6 , 8 , 10) |
| 3. court's reasoning on obviousness. (Para 19 , 34 , 42) |
| 4. conclusion on the patent's obvious nature. (Para 22 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
(Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J.)
(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 117-A of the PATENTS ACT , 1970, to set aside the order dated 11 November 2016 issued by the Respondent and direct that the Patent Application No.6334/CHENP/2009 proceed to grant.)
Background
The appellant assails an order dated 11.11.2016 by which Indian Patent Application No.6334/CHENP/2009, which is the national phase application derived from PCT Application No.PCT/EP08/55018, was rejected.
2. The appellant filed the above mentioned application dated 26.10.2009 for grant of patent in respect of an invention titled “Polyamide Material Having High Fluid Barrier Properties” by claiming its priority date from French Application No.0703069 dated 27.04.2007. The claimed invention relates to polyamide materials having high barrier properties to fluids, i.e. gases and liquids. Fifteen original claims were set out in the compl
A claimed invention must demonstrate inventive step and technical advancement; combinations deemed obvious must avoid hindsight bias, treating knowledge available at the priority date effectively.
The court upheld the denial of a patent claim on grounds of lack of inventiveness, affirming that minor amendments did not confer novelty over existing prior art as per Patents Act standards.
An invention must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step, and cannot be merely a known process that does not result in a new product or employ a new reactant to qualify for patent protection.
A claimed patent must demonstrate novelty and an inventive step, which cannot be established by mere derivations that lack enhanced efficacy.
Passing of a reasoned and a speaking order is an integral part of the principle of audi alteram partem. The Controller must consider the existing knowledge and how a person skilled in the art would m....
The refusal of a patent application must be reasoned and sustainable, and the teachings of prior art documents must be carefully analyzed before making a decision.
The court allowed the amendment of claims at the appellate stage and found that the invention satisfied the criteria of inventive step.
A patent rejection must be a reasoned order that explicitly analyzes prior art and demonstrates why a person skilled in the art would be motivated to combine teachings to arrive at the claimed invent....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
