Back
P. B. BALAJI
Versalis SPA, Pizza Boldrini, Italy, represented by its Constituted Attorney, Mr. Pradeep Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Controller of Patents, Intellectual Property Office Building, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(P.B. Balaji, J.)
(Prayer: This appeal came to be numbered by transfer of IPAB Case OA SR.No.74/2017/PT/CHN from the file of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Chennai praying to allow the present Appeal and set aside the order dated 02.05.2017 of the learned Assistant Controller and present Application being IN7854/CHENP/2011 be granted and to issue directions to the respondent to allow the Appellant to make necessary amendments in the claims, if needed, in order for the Application to be granted and costs be allowed to the Appellant.)
The Appellant challenges the impugned order dated 02.05.2017 in 7854/CHENP/2011, rejecting the Appellant’s patent application for the invention, which relates to “a process of hydrolysis of lignoceullulosic biomass”.
2. I have heard Mr.Arun C. Mohan, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr.V.T.Balaji, learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel, for the respondent. I have also perused the records including the impugned order. I have also carefully gone through the decisions on which the learned counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on.
3. The main ground on which the patent has been rejected is that the claims are not inv
The court established that an invention must demonstrate novelty and technical advancement over prior arts to be patentable, rejecting the notion of hindsight deduction in assessing inventiveness.
The combination of known processes does not negate inventiveness unless it is established that such combination was previously known, and prior art must be adequately substantiated.
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 main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a detailed analysis of the existing knowledge and how the subject invention lacks inventiveness in light of the prior art when ....
A reasoned decision is required while rejecting patent applications, considering the existing knowledge, inventive step, and how the subject invention would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a patent application should be based on the objections raised in the hearing notice, and the decision should not exceed the s....
Patent applications must be supported by substantial reasoning, including consideration of foreign patents and prior art, during rejections by patent controllers.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of accurate references to prior art documents and the need to ensure a fair and accurate consideration of patent applications.
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
