$~(Original)

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021 AUDERTEC SOLUTIONS LLP ..... Appellant Through: Ms. Priya Adlakha, Mr. Bindra Rana, Ms. Rima Majumdar, Mr. Dhruv Mathur and Mr. Swaraj Singh Raghuwanshi, Advs.

Versus CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND TRADE MARKS & ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, CGSC, Mr. Srish Kumar Mishra, Mr. Sagar Mehlawat and Mr. Alexander Mathai Paikaday, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

% 01.03.2024 C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 3/2021

1. The appellant submitted Application No. 202011011938 dated 19 March 2020 for grant of a patent in respect of an invention titled “a method and system for detecting road anomalies” (hereinafter “the subject patent”). The application stands rejected by the Controller of Patents and Designs (“the Controller”) vide order dated 8 January 2021 passed under Section 15 of the Patents Act, 1970. The appellant is in appeal against the said order.

2. The impugned order rejects the application on the ground that Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed the claim in the application suffers from want of inventive step vis-a- vis prior art D-2. Though the First Examination Report (FER) dated 15 June 2020 cites four prior art documents D-1 to D-4 as disclosing all the features of the claims in the subject patent, the notice of personal hearing, issued consequent to the reply filed by the appellant to the FER, restricted the allegation of lack of inventive step to comparison of the subject patent with the prior art D-1 to D-3 and the final impugned order holds the subject patent to be lacking an inventive step only vis-a-vis the prior art D-2.

3. I may note that this position was accepted by both sides and arguments were also advanced before me, on the aspect of obviousness and inventive subject in the subject patent vis-a-vis the prior art D-2.

4. The Court is only required, therefore, to examine whether the subject patent is lacking an inventive step vis-a-vis D-2; in other words, whether the distinguishing features of the subject patent would be obvious to a person skilled in the art from the disclosures contained in D-2 and, therefore, whether the impugned order is correct in rejecting the appellant’s application on the ground of lack of inventive step.

5. For this, one has to appreciate the essential features of the suit patent, which are claimed, by the appellant, to be inventive.

6. The complete specifications of the suit patent read thus:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

FIELDOFTHE INVENTION [001] The present invention relates to transportation management information system. More particularly, it relates to a system andmethodtomaintaintheheavilytravelled roadways.

BACKGROUNDOFTHE INVENTION [002] In the recent years, with exponential increase in traffic on the roads, there is lot of pressure on continuous upkeep and maintenance of the road networks across the cities. Road authorities are losing the continuous battle for upkeep of the road because of frequent weather change, improper drainage, improper or inadequate repair work, improper design of the road, frequent cutting of the roads for laying cables and conduits, heavy traffic or heavy vehicles plying on the roads which are not designed to handle such loads. As a result, road imperfections develop continuously and need to be managed before they become dangerous.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed [003] Road anomalymaybe defined as misalignment in the road su