Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Steer Engineering Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Joint Controller Of Patents And Designs The Patent Office – Respondent
CMA(PT) No. 54 of 2024
Decided On : 05-01-2026
Important Points
Subject
Patent Law - Inventive Step
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Inventive Step - Assessment of whether differences between claimed invention and prior arts constitute inventive steps, where prior arts suggest similar methods and product characteristics to those claimed, rendering application obvious to a skilled person in the art. (Paras 3-4, 10)
Facts of the case:
Appeal from the appellant against the Joint Controller's refusal of patent application regarding fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition, claimed as containing specific combinations of thermoplastics and fibers, with arguments pertaining to inventive step and amendment permissibility. (Paras 1-2, 11)
Findings of Court:
Affirmed the respondent's decision to deny claims due to overlap with parental application and failure to demonstrate a sufficient inventive step not obvious from prior art. (Paras 11-12)
Issues: Main issues centered around the inventive step's legal criteria and whether the application establishes any advancement over the existing body of art. (Paras 4, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the claims were too similar to existing patents and did not present significant advancements necessary for a patent grant, particularly regarding the claimed inventions' components and their obvious characteristics. (Paras 11-12)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
For the Appellant : Mr.Essenese Obhan for Mr.M.S.Bharath
For the Respondent: Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, Spcgsc, Ms.J.Meena - Join controller of Patents, Designs Appeared Through Vc
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of patent application and claims. (Para 1 , 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondent's rejection of claims and cited reasons. (Para 3 , 3) |
| 3. controller's detailed observations on the cited prior art. (Para 4) |
| 4. appellant's argument regarding claim amendments. (Para 5) |
| 5. judicial analysis of inventive step and bias considerations. (Para 6) |
| 6. framework for evaluating obviousness in patent applications. (Para 7 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 7. judgment on compliance with mandatory legal requirements. (Para 10) |
| 8. conclusion on the validity of respondent's findings. (Para 11) |
| 9. final verdict on the appeal dismissal. (Para 12) |
JUDGMENT :
N. SENTHILKUMAR, J.
Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the Joint Controller of Patents and Designs, Indian Patent Office, Chennai, refusing the grant of a patent in respect of Patent Application No.202142059972, this application has been filed as a divisional application, divided out of Indian Patent Application No.201741044221, which is the parent application. A First Examination Report (in short 'FER') was issued on 07.03.2022. A response to the FER and an amended set of claims was submitted by the agent of the appellant on 05.09.2022. A hearing notice was issued by the Indian Patent Office on 10.10.2023. A written submission dated 18.12.2023, based on the reply to the first examination report was filed by the appellant. Subsequent to the hearing, the impugned order was passed by the respondent.
2. The Appellant has made the following amended claims:
Claim 1: A fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition comprising:
a mixture of first thermoplastic and a second thermoplastic, wherein the first thermoplastic is un-plasticised polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and the second thermoplastic is acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABS); and at least one wetter continuous fiber uniformly incorporated in the mixture of the unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and the acrylonitrile-butadiene- styrene (ABS), wherein the fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition has a density between 1.3 g/cc to 1.7 g/cc and a flexural modulus of at least 4000 MPa.
Claim 2: The fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein rubber content in the acrylonitrile-butadiene- styrene (ABS) is in a range of 10 to 80 percent by volume.
Claim 3: The fiber reinforced theremoplastic composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein volume percent of the continuous and chopped fiber to a total volume of un-plasticised PVC is 10% to 40%.
Claim 4: The fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition as claimed in claim 1 having a flexural strength of at least 100 Mpa.
Claim 5: The fiber reinforced Thermoplastic composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one wetted continuous fiber comprises one or more liquids or additives that accumulate over the at least one wetted continuous fiber .
Claim 6: The fiber reinforced thermoplastic composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the one or more liquids or additives encapsulate the at least one wetted continuous fiber.
Claim 7: A process of preparing a fiber reinforced thermoplastic, the process comprising:
melting a first thermoplastic and a second thermoplastic in a melting zone of a twin-screw processor, wherein the first thermoplastic is un-plasticised polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and the second thermoplastic is acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene(ABC);
feeding at least one continuous fiber downstream of the melting zone into a melted mixture of the unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and the acrylonitrile-butadiene-styrene (ABC), Wherein the feeding comprises wetting the at least one continuous fiber before mixing with the melted mixture of the unplasticised polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and the acrylonitrile- butadiene-styrene(ABC); incorporating the at least one wetted continuous fiber into the melted mixture in a mixing zone, the mixing zone including only wave elements having a continuous outer surface in the form of a helical wave such that the at least one wetted continuous fibe
