Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Navya Network Inc – Appellant
Versus
Controller Of Patents & Designs, Patent Office – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. claims relate to algorithm (Para 3) |
| 2. rejection on business method (Para 4) |
| 3. lack of inventive step (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. claimed invention features (Para 7) |
| 5. prior art d3 analysis (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. prior art d2 analysis (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. prior art d1 analysis (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 8. obvious to psita (Para 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 9. order confirmed (Para 19) |
JUDGMENT :
(SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.)
This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.03. dismissing Patent Application No.951/CHENP/2013. The said application was filed by the appellant herein for grant of patent for an invention titled “TREATMENT RELATED QUANTITATIVE DECISION ENGINE”.
2. Upon request by the appellant, the respondent issued a First Examination Report (FER) dated 21.11.2019. In the FER, objections were raised inter alia on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, exclusion under Section 3(k), lack of clarity and conciseness under Section 10(5) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Patents Act). The appellant responded to the FER on 21.08.2020 and submitted amended claims. Pursuant to hearing notice dated 13.12.2021, the appellant submitted written submissions on 22.02.2022 by enclosing current claims 1
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
