2024:MHC:1009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgment reserved on 10.11.2023 Judgment pronounced on 28.02.2024 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr. Justice SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY (T) CMA (PT) No.71 of 2023 (OA/3/2021/PT/CHN)

Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC [Earlier Microsoft Corporation (Assignor)]

One Microsoft Way Redmond, Washington 98052 United States of America ...Appellant v.

Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Government of India, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office Building, Cp-2, Sector V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700091. ...Respondent PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 117-A of the Patents Act, 1970, to set aside the order dated 29 September 2020 issued by the Respondent and direct that Patent Application No.1783/CHENP/2012 proceed to grant.

For Appellant : Ms.Vindhya S.Mani, Mr.Kiran Manokaran, for M/s.Lakshmikumaran and Sridharan For Respondent : Mr.S.Diwakar, SPC &

Mr.Saroj Kumar Singh, Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs

JUDGMENT

Background The appellant assails an order dated 29 September 2020 by which Indian Patent Application No.1783/CHENP/2012, which is the national phase application derived from PCT Application dated 15 September 2010, was rejected.

2. The appellant filed the above-mentioned application on 27 February

2012 for an invention titled "Message Communication of Sensor and other Data" claiming priority from 23 September 2009. Pursuant to a request for examination, the first examination report (FER) was issued by the respondent on 27 June 2019. The appellant filed a detailed response thereto on 27 December 2019. Along with such response, amended claims 1 to 14 were filed. The hearing was conducted on 14 July 2020 and the appellant filed written submissions thereafter. Eventually, by order dated 29 September 2020, the application was rejected. The present appeal arises in the said facts and circumstances. Counsel and their contentions

3. Oral arguments were advanced by Ms.Vindhya Mani, learned counsel for the appellant; and by Mr.S. Diwakar, learned SPC, assisted by Mr.Saroj Kumar Singh, Assistant Controller of Patents,on behalf of the respondent. Both parties also filed written submissions.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the invention is titled "Message Communication of Sensor and other Data". She pointed out that computers and other machines are often equipped with sensors, such as an accelerometer, a light sensor or a global positioning system (GPS) receiver, that allow the machine to detect various aspects of its environment. She next submitted that computers typically provide an interface to the sensors so that software on the machine can read data from the sensors. For such purpose, she submitted that the computer's operating system may provide an application programming interface (API) that allows applications to read sensor values, but that such sensor interfaces complicate the design of the software because they typically involve complex control flow loops that respond to events. On account of such complexity, learned counsel submitted that many programmes do not make use of sensor data.

5. By referring to paragraph [0004] of the complete specification of the claimed invention, learned counsel submitted that the appellant's invention is aimed at providing a solution to the above problem by a simple light weight messaging system.Towards this end, she submitted that the invention envisages a sensor service whereby applications that want to receive sensor values subscribe to sensor notifications through the sensor service. The sensor service may determine on the basis of triggers - such as changes in sensor values or passage of time - that messages should be generated. She further submitted that these light weight messages do not require the writing and use of code. By contrast, she submitted that the prior art envisaged that the sensor readings would be incorporated into the application's run time loop and that the application wou