JUDGMENT

SANJEEV NARULA, J. (Oral):

1. The Appellant filed patent application No. 7529/DELNP/2014 as a national phase application arising from PCT application No. PCT/EP2012/069237 dated 28th September, 2012, for invention titled “Plastics Material Strapping Band and Method for Producing a Plastics Material Strapping Band” [hereinafter, “subject application”]. The subject application derives priority from a German patent application No. DE

102012102155.4 dated 14th March, 2012.

2. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs [hereinafter, “Controller”], vide order dated 20th July, 2020, refused the subject application under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970 for non-fulfilment of requirements under Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 10(4) of the said Act [hereinafter, “impugned order”]. The reasoning for this conclusion is as under:

“Analysis:-

The invention relates to plastic strapping for wrapping around one or several objects.

D1 discloses boxing or packaging of individual articles or a plurality of articles and, more particularly, to an improved packaging method in which the package is first formed by means of a relatively thin or lightweight or structurally inadequate wrapper and is thereafter coated either in local areas or overall with a resinous substance either with or without fibrous reinforcement for the purpose of imparting the desired strength, tear resistance and wear resistance to the package so that it can be handled thereafter and stored or shipped without disruption or breakage of the contents of the package.

D2 discloses polyester strapping made from polyester and less than 3% by weight of a polyolefin additive exhibits improved resistance to longitudinal splitting when the strapping is later placed under tension in packaging reinforcement applications. The polyolefin improves the longitudinal split resistance of the strapping without facilitating the unwanted longitudinal stretch of the polyester strapping when under tension. The polyolefin additive may be combined with other conventional additives or may be used alone in order to minimize costs.

Therefore, from the teachings of the combination of prior art documents D1-D2, it would have been obvious to the person skilled in the art to provide an alternative plastic wrapping material with components mentioned in the application (Altering ranges are obvious to a person skilled in the art) of without any inventive skills.

Therefore, the subject matter of the claims 1-10 lack inventive step under section

2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.

Order:

In view of the above facts and on the circumstances of the case, the undersigned is of the opinion that the application filed in pursuance thereof, does not comply with the requirements of section 2(l)(ja) and section 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970. Hence, the application no. 7529/DELNP/2014 is refused u/s 15 of the Patents Act, 1970.”

3. The Court has heard the counsel and perused the record.

Re: Objection under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act

4. The impugned order is bereft of any reasoning for refusal of the subject application under Section 10(4) of the Patents Act. The basis for rejection on this ground is only discernible from the objection raised in the second Hearing Notice dated 11th May, 2020, which is as follows:

“Definitiveness

1. Section 10(4) of The Patents Act, 1970.

The phrase ‘one or more articles’ in the principle claim is not defined to what does it relate and therefore the claim remains unclear.

Words such as up to approximately are vague and unclear.

The claims need to be supported with the description by the way of working examples.”

5. In their primary claim 1, Appellant has defined the weight of the constituent elements of the plastic strapping band as approximately 90% of polyester, 1% to 5% of polyolefin and 5% to 10% of fibre material. As per the Controller, this claim is vague as it only mentions an approximate value. The ratios/ ranges in the complete specification use the expressions ‘upto’, ‘about’ and ‘approximatel