This appeal has been preferred challenging the refusal for grant of Patent in Patent Application No.458/CHENP/2012. 2. I have heard Mr.Shivathanu Mohan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.Subbu Ranga Bharathi, learned Senior Panel Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondent.

3. The appellant filed an Application on 12.01.2012. The claim of the appellant is in respect of a composition comprising Cerium Oxide and Zirconium Oxide having a specific porosity, preparation method thereof and use of same in catalysis.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the patent application was rejected on two grounds viz., under section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act citing lack of inventive steps and under section 3(e) of the Act stating that the substance was obtained by mere admixture alone.

5. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant would take me through the impugned order of the respondent and contend as follows:-

(i) In respect of lack of inventive steps, he would submit that two prior arts viz., D.1 and D.2 were cited. Subsequently, after the notice of hearing, D.3 and D.4 were added. The appellant filed his written submissions on 02.02.2018. I