The claimed invention presents an inventive step over prior art by simplifying complex sensor data communication, lacking obviousness per Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.

JUDGMENT :

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

Background

1. The appellant assails an order dated 29 September 2020 by which Indian Patent Application No.1783/CHENP/2012, which is the national phase application derived from PCT Application dated 15 September 2010, was rejected.

2. The appellant filed the above-mentioned application on 27 February 2012 for an invention titled "Message Communication of Sensor and other Data" claiming priority from 23 September 2009. Pursuant to a request for examination, the first examination report (FER) was issued by the respondent on 27 June 2019. The appellant filed a detailed response thereto on 27 December 2019. Along with such response, amended claims 1 to 14 were filed. The hearing was conducted on 14 July 2020 and the appellant filed written submissions thereafter. Eventually, by order dated 29 September 2020, the application was rejected. The present appeal arises in the said facts and circumstances.

Counsel and their contentions

3. Oral arguments were advanced by Ms.Vindhya Mani, learned counsel for the appellant; and by Mr.S. Diwakar, learned SPC, assisted by Mr.Saroj Kumar Singh, Assistant Controller of Patents,on behalf of the respondent. Both parties also filed written submissions.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the invention is titled "Message Communication of Sensor and other Data". She pointed out that computers and other machines are often equipped with sensors, such as an accelerometer, a light sensor or a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, that allow the machine to detect various aspects of its environment. She next submitted that computers typically provide an interface to the sensors so that software on the machine can read data from the sensors. For such purpose, she submitted that the computer's operating system may provide an application programming interface (API) that allows applications to read sensor values, but that such sensor interfaces complicate the design of the software because they typically involve complex control flow loops that respond to events. On account of such complexity, learned counsel submitted that many programmes do not make use of sensor data.

5. By referring to paragraph [0004] of the complete specification of the claimed invention, learned counsel submitted that the appellant's invention is aimed at providing a solution to the above problem by a simple light weight messaging system.Towards this end, she submitted that the invention envisages a sensor service whereby applications that want to receive sensor values subscribe to sensor notifications through the sensor service. The sensor service may determine on the basis of triggers - such as changes in sensor values or passage of time - that messages should be generated. She further submitted that these light weight messages do not require the writing and use of code. By contrast, she submitted that the prior art envisaged that the sensor readings would be incorporated into the application's run time loop and that the application would be required to include code to initialise and instantiate the API, and to manage the data from the API.

6. Learned counsel next contended that the respondent rejected the patent application by relying on an order dated 02 November 2012 of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (the IPAB) in OA/250/2012 and recording blanket statements that non-obviousness "demands that the claimed invention be sufficiently removed from the prior art" and that non- obviousness enquiry is "a more aggressive sentry". By referring to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs(Agriboard), 2022: DHC: 1206, learned