Case No: C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 297/2022
Neutral Citation No. 2023/DHC/001816
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Justice: Prathiba M Singh, H.J.
Case Title: Biomoneta Research Pvt. Ltd. Vs Controller General of Patents and Design and another
The Subject Matter Patent of the Appellant:
Air Decontamination Assembly’ bearing Application No. 201741016833, dated 12th May, 2017
The Subject Matter impugned Order:
The Ld. Controller of Patent , vide impugned Order dated 09.02.2021, was pleased to refuse afore mentioned Patent Application of the Appellant.
The Reason for Refusal of the Patent Application was based on prior arts D1, D2 and D3.
The Prior Arts:
D-1: US20120000782A1– dated 5th January 2012: relates to a reactor, which consists of a uniform di-electrical field.
D-2:US20130071298A1 dated 21st March 2013.The document discloses that similar apparatus, for removing microbes and viruses suspended in a space, exist in the prior art.
D-3:US20100282083A1 dated 2nd January, 2008:It discloses air cleaning devices for removal of organic pathogens.
The Order of Hon'ble Single Judge:
The Order of Controller was set aside and Patent was granted.
The Reasons for the Grant.
1. In order to evaluate the Inventive Step, following exercise is required to be taken:
To identify the differences, if any, between the matter cited and the alleged invention and ascertain whether the differences are ordinary application of law or involve various different steps requiring multiple, theoretical and practical applications;
Step No.5 To decide whether those differences, viewed in the knowledge of alleged invention, constituted steps which would have been obvious to the ordinary person skilled in the art and rule out a hind side approach.”
2.There can be no doubt that some of the features in D1, D2 and D3 are present in the subject invention.
3.However, the subject invention is not a mere addition to a well-known combination.
4. It has some new features and is an improvement in the method which has brought in greater efficiency.
5.When a claim consists of a ‘combination of features’, it is not correct to argue that the separate features of the combination taken by themselves are known or obvious and that ‘therefore’ the whole subject-matter claimed is obvious, the interactions of the individual features must produce a synergistic effect.
6. If there is a synergistic combination or a working interrelation which produces a new and improved result, the subject matter is patentable.
7.When a set of old results are combined in a new and profitable manner, a patent can be granted.
8.the subject invention addresses various disadvantages in the prior art such as frequent changing of filters, high power consumption, easier utility owing to the size of the device, lesser maintenance costs, more effectiveness for decontamination.
This information is being shared in the public interest. It should not be treated as a substitute for legal advice as there may be possibility of error in perception, presentation and interpretation of facts and the law involved therein.
Ajay Amitabh Suman, IPR Advocate
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi
Mob:9990389539
Email: ajayamitabh7@gmail.com
