2024:MHC:2558 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Judgment reserved on 21.12.2023

Judgment pronounced on 05.07.2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

(T) CMA (PT) No.146 of 2023

[OA/32/2020/PT/CHN]

M/s.The Zero Brand Zone Pvt. Ltd.

And Anand, Jayashree

Represented by Director,

S.Kalyanaraman, having office at

506, 5

th

Floor, Srishiti

Plaza, Off Saki Vihar Road, Powai,

Maharastra, Mumbai 400 072. ... Appellant

v.

1. The Controller of Patents & Designs

Chennai Intellectual Property Building

G.S.T.Road, Guindy,

Chennai-600 032.

2. Assistant Controller of Patents,

Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office Building,

G.S.T.Road, Guindy,

Chennai-600 032. ... Respondents

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

PRAYER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 117-A

of the Patents Act, 1970, prays (i) that this Court may be pleased to

set aside the order dated 12.03.2020, passed by the 2

nd

Respondent

herein in Application No.201721043812 dated 06.12.2017 and

consequently prayed to direct to issue patent; and (ii) to pass such

further and other order or orders as this Court may be deemed fit

and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

For Appellants : Mr.C.V.Ramachandra Murthy

Mr.A.Rajaraman

For Respondent : Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, SPC

JUDGMENT

Background

The appellant filed Patent Application No.201721043812 on

06.12.2017 for the grant of patent for an invention titled 'Eco-friendly

lamp made up of composition based on panchagavya with the

combination of leaves used in traditional herbal medicine'. The said

application was published on 22.06.2018. Based on a request for

examination, the First Examination Report (FER) was issued on

29.06.2018. The appellant filed a response thereto on 08.08.2018. A

pre-grant opposition was filed by Mr.R.A.Swaminathan on

22.08.2018. The appellant replied thereto on 23.10.2018. By

2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

communication dated 22.07.2019, a hearing was fixed on 04.09.2019.

While the appellant attended the hearing, the pre-grant opponent

failed to attend the hearing. The application was heard and rejected

by impugned order dated 11.04.2020 in the above facts and

circumstances.

Counsel and their contentions:

2. Oral arguments on behalf of the appellant were submitted by

Mr.C.V.Ramachandramurthy and on behalf of the respondents by

Mr.A.R.Sakthivel, learned SPC. Both the appellant and the

respondents also filed written submissions.

3. Although there was a pre-grant opposition before the patent

office, the appellant did not implead the pre-grant opponent as a

party to this appeal on the ground that such pre-grant opponent did

not participate in proceedings culminating in the impugned order.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the claims

are in respect of a single-use lamp and the process for producing

3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

such lamp. He also pointed out that the product and process satisfies

all the requirements of Section 2(1)(j) of the Patents Act, 1970 (the

Patents Act). With reference to the prior art documents cited in the

impugned order, learned counsel submitted that D1 and D2 deal

with mosquito repellents. Consequently, he contended that they are

not analogous or relevant prior arts. He further submitted that the

ingredients in the claimed invention are not the same as in the cited

prior arts. Although 53 ingredients are used in prior art D1, learned

counsel submitted that such ingredients are not the same as those

used in the claimed invention. As regards prior art D2, he submitted

that there is only one common ingredient. With regard to prior art

D3, learned counsel submitted that it is non-patent literature

published on or about 12.10.2017. Since the patent application was

filed on 06.12.2017, which is not later than 12 months from the date

of publication of D3, he contended that the claimed invention should

not have been rejected by reference to prior art document D3.

Learned counsel also submitted that the report of SGS Laboratories

was disregarded while issuing the impugned order.

4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5. As regards rejection with reference to Section 3(p) of the

Patents Act, learned counsel submitted that clause (p) applies when

the invention is, in effect, traditional knowledge or is an aggregation

of known properties of traditionally known compositions. While

admitting that cow dung, cow urine, cow ghee, cow butter, cow milk

and cow curd are part of traditional knowledge, he pointed out that

the manufacturing of a single-use lamp by using these ingredients

qualifies as an invention. Therefore, he contended that clause (p) of

Section 3 is not applicable. He further submitted that clause (d) only

applies for a new form of a known substance. Since the single-use

lamp made from cow products and a mixture of leaves selected from

neem tree, lemon tree and peepal tree is a new product and not a

known substance, he contended that clause (d) of Section 3 is not

applicable. As regards clause (e) of Section 3, he submits that it only

applies to a substance obtained by a mere admixture of ingredients.

According to him, clause (e) of Section 3 is inapplicable to the

product claim. Even as regards the process claim, he submits that

such claim is not in respect of a substance. For all the above reasons,

learned counsel submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set

5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

aside and that the appellant is entitled to grant of patent.

6. In response to these submissions, the respondents contended

that the claimed invention was liable to be rejected in view of prior

art documents D1 to D3. According to the respondents, all the

ingredients used in the claimed invention are known ingredients,

which form part of traditional knowledge. D1 contains most of the

ingredients in the claimed invention. By referring to prior art D3,

learned SPC pointed out that D3 deals with a lamp made of

substantially the same ingredients as the claimed invention.

Therefore, it was submitted that the claimed invention would be

obvious to a person skilled in the art on the basis of prior art D3.

7. By way of rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner

reiterated that prior art documents D1 and D2 pertain to mosquito

repellents and, consequently, do not qualify as analogous prior arts.

As regards prior art D3, after submitting that the lamp was made out

of cow dung and ghee and not all the six ingredients used in the

6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

claimed invention, he submitted that D3 teaches the production of a

lamp made of a dried form of cow dung base mixture which cannot

withstand high pressure [900-1100 psi] or the temperature of 100° C,

which is required for moulding the lamp of the claimed invention.

He also pointed out that D3 does not teach the use of cow butter

which acts as a binding agent along with the specific mixture of

leaves of the neem tree, lemon tree and peepal tree, thereby helping

to withstand the pressure and temperature during the moulding

process. Therefore, learned counsel contended that the claimed

invention is not obvious from prior art D3. By pointing out that the

claimed invention makes use of panchagavya + neem leaves + lemon

leaves + peepal leaves, learned counsel submitted that the claimed

invention emits light, does not use water and is a zero carbon

product. According to him, such a value added product based of

traditional knowledge is not excluded from patent protection under

clause (p) of Section 3.

Discussion, analysis and conclusions:

8. The claims made by the appellant are as under:

7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

“ WE CLAIM :

1. A lamp made up of natural ingredients for one

time use only comprising:

i) 40-60% Cow dung;

ii) 5-20% Cow urine;

iii)2-8% Cow ghee;

iv) 2-8% Cow butter;

v) 1-5% Cow milk

vi) 1-10% Cow curd

vii) 10-25% Mixture of leaves selected

from 5% to 15% from the Neem tree

(Azadirachta Indica), 5% to 10% from the lemon

tree (Citrus Limon) and 5% to 15% from the

Peepal tree (Ficus religiosa).

2. A Process for the preparation of lamp as

claimed in claim 1 comprising the steps of:

i) Mixing wet cow dung with cow urine,

cow ghee, cow butter, cow milk and cow curd to

obtain a mixture;

ii)Grounding of leaves of neem tree

(Azadirachta Indica), lemon tree (citrus limon)

and peepal tree (Ficus religiosa) to obtain a wet

paste.

iii) Adding wet paste obtained in step (ii) to

8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the mixture obtained in step (i) to obtain a

composition which is poured into a mould to

obtain a lamp by applying pressure in the range

from 900 -1100 psi and temperature in the range

from 80-100°C”

From the above claims, it is evident that the first is a product claim

and the second a process claim. Both claims relate to a lamp made

from six ingredients that originate from the cow and a mixture of

leaves selected from the neem tree, lemon tree and peepal tree. The

appellant has indicated the proportions in which these ingredients

should be used.

9. Against this backdrop, I first deal with the grounds of

rejection under Section 3 of the Patents Act. In the impugned order,

the following conclusions were recorded in this regard:

“Appellant's agent reply regarding sub-sections

(e) and (p) of section 3 are not tenable. Regarding

section 3(p)of the Act,applicant's agent stated

that “Though individually components cow dung

9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

(cow dung cake), cow ghee, cow butter usage as

fuel, however cow urine, cow milk and cow curd

are not known to be used as fuel.” From page 2 of

the complete specification it is clear that

“Panchagavya is a term used in Ayurveda to

describe five major substances obtained from cow,

which include cow's urine, cow's ghee, cow's

curd and cow's dung.” Panchagavya is known

from years. The essential components of the prior

art and the present invention are same. In view of

the traditional knowledge of cow dung (cow dung

cake), cow ghee, cow butter usage as fule,

neem/lemon leaves as insect repellent, and

panchagavya usage as organic manure, the

subject matter of the claims 1-2 are not patentable

u/s 3(p) of the Act. Claim is not allowed u/s 3(d)

of the patents act 1970 as the claiming lamp is a

new form of a known substance.”

The sustainability of these conclusions should be tested by closely

examining clause (p) of Section 3. Clause (p) of Section 3 excludes an

invention which, in effect, is traditional knowledge or which is an

aggregation of known properties of traditionally known components.

Clause (p) is set out below:

10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

“Section 3:

(p) an invention which, in effect, is

traditional knowledge or which is an aggregation

or duplication of known properties of

traditionally known component or components. “

10. The Patents (Amendment) Act, 2002 inserted clause (p) in

Section 3, and this clause was enacted in terms identical to the

Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999. The Joint Parliamentary

Committee Report on the Patents (Second Amendment) Bill, 1999,

which recommended the above amendment, contained the following

reason for the amendment:

“A new clause (p) has been added to protect the

country's traditional knowledge from being

patented.”

Thus, it is evident that the object and purpose of inserting clause(p)

was to prevent the creation of a monopoly over traditional

knowledge, including by aggregating the known properties of

traditionally known components. It should also be noticed that the

expression “traditional knowledge” is not qualified by the words

11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

“per se”, unlike the expression “computer programme per se” in

Section 3(k). It should, however, also be noticed that the exclusion is

not intended to completely shut out inventions that draw on

traditional knowledge provided the patent applicant is able to

establish that the product or process can no longer be described as

being, in effect, traditional knowledge. Whether the appellant has

surmounted such high bar remains to be seen. The expression

“traditional knowledge” is not defined in the Patents Act. The World

Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) defines traditional

knowledge as “knowledge, know-how, skills and practices that are

developed, sustained and passed on from generation to generation

within a community, often forming part of its cultural or spiritual

identity”. The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural

Organisation (UNESCO) defines traditional knowledge as under:

“Knowledge, innovations and practices of

indigenous and local communities around the

world. Developed from experience gained over the

centuries and adapted to the local culture and

environment, traditional knowledge is

transmitted orally from generation to generation.

12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

It tends to be collectively owned and takes the

form of stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, cultural

values, beliefs, rituals, community laws, local

language and agricultural practices, including the

development of plant species and animal breeds.

Traditional knowledge is mainly of a practical

nature, particularly in such fields as agriculture,

fisheries, health, horticulture, forestry and

environmental management in general.”

Thus, traditional knowledge derived from centuries of lived

experience takes many forms and is passed on from one generation

to the next. Such knowledge is commonly owned by the

communities possessing the knowledge. Because of such community

ownership, the legislature denies exclusive monopoly rights to

inventions incorporating traditional knowledge.

11. In the Patents Act, Section 3(p) provides defensive

protection of traditional knowledge by excluding inventions which

are “in effect” traditional knowledge from patent eligibility. The term

“in effect” in the provision ensures that there is no circumvention of

13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the prohibition by concealing the usage of traditionally known

components or their properties in a claimed invention.

12. Cow dung, cow urine, cow ghee and other cow products

along with leaves of the neem tree, lemon tree and peepal tree are

animal and plant products that have been used traditionally in India.

The use of these products would, therefore, form part of traditional

knowledge. This leads to the question whether the combination of

these products in specific proportions for the production of a lamp

falls outside the scope of clause (p). This, in turn, depends on

whether known properties of these products have been aggregated in

the claimed invention. In the impugned order, the second respondent

referred to the expression “panchagavya” in ayurveda as referring to

five substances derived from the cow, namely, urine, milk, ghee,

curd and dung. Reference was also made to traditional knowledge of

the use of cow dung cake, cow ghee and cow butter as fuel and the

use of neem and lemon leaves as insect repellents. Even assuming

that urine, milk and curd from the cow were not known to be used as

fuel, as contended by the appellant, since one of the known

14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

properties of other ingredients is their use as fuel, the claimed

invention would fall within Section 3(p). Indeed, a Google search is

sufficient to establish the conventional use of cow dung as fuel, in

combination with neem and lemon leaves (for fragrance and as insect

repellents), and to make lamps during festivals, such as Diwali. In

the claimed invention, the lamp is produced from the mixture of

these components and, upon being lit, it has the effects of, inter alia,

emitting light, acting as a mosquito repellent and not leaving a

carbon footprint. The usage of such traditional knowledge, including

by using known properties of the ingredients, therefore, falls within

the exclusion in Section 3(k). For reasons set out above, I see no

reason to depart from the conclusions of the second respondent on

Section 3(p) of the Patents Act. This conclusion, on its own, is

sufficient to reject this appeal. Nonetheless, since conclusions on

other exclusions under Section 3 and on lack of inventive step were

recorded in the impugned order, the same are also discussed.

13. As regards clause (d), it applies inter alia to the mere

discovery of a new form of a known substance or to the mere

15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

discovery of any new property or new use for a known substance.

Given the fact that the claim is in respect of a lamp made of multiple

ingredients and not for a new form of a known substance, it cannot

be construed as a mere discovery of a new form of a known

substance. Therefore, clause (d) of Section 3 is not applicable.

Clause (e) of Section 3 excludes from patent protection a substance

obtained by a mere admixture of components or ingredients. This

clause was interpreted in Novozymes v. Assistant Controller of Patents

and Designs, 2023/MHC/4261, as applicable to a composition claim

unless the patent applicant establishes synergy between the

ingredients constituting the composition. The claim in the present

case is not in respect of a composition; it is for a product and a

process for making such product. Hence clause (e) of Section 3 is also

not applicable.

Alleged non-consideration of documents

14. Before embarking on obviousness analysis, it is necessary to

deal briefly with the appellant's contention that several documents

were not taken into consideration by the respondents. The documents

relied on by the appellant were i) Chinese Science Bulletin Article

16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

“Climatic and environmental implications from n-alkanes in glacially

eroded lake sediments in Tibetan Plateau: An example from Ximen

Co”; ii) SGS Report; iii) 2011 Census Data; and iv) China Publication

No. 17771045 Announcement No. 100475221. On examining the

record of patent prosecution, it appears that the appellant had not

placed documents labelled as i), iii) and iv) above before the

respondents. Therefore, those documents cannot be considered at the

appellate stage. The SGS report, however, was submitted along with

the reply to the FER. I deal with this document in course of

discussion on inventive step.

Obviousness analysis

15. Section 2(1)(j) and Section 2(1)(ja), which define invention

and inventive step, respectively, are set out below:

“ 2. Definitions and interpretation.- (1) In this Act, unless the

context otherwise requires,-

[(j) "invention" means a new product or process

involving an inventive step and capable of

industrial application;

[(ja) "inventive step" means a feature of an

17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

invention that involves technical advance as

compared to the existing knowledge or having

economic significance or both and that makes the

invention not obvious to a person skilled in the

art;]

In the above statutory context, whether the claimed invention would

be obvious to a person skilled in the art based on the cited prior art

falls for consideration next. In the impugned order, after examining

prior arts D1 to D3, the following conclusions were recorded:

“In view of the documents cited, herbal

compositions made of cow dung, ghee, milk,

butter, neem, lemon, peepal tree are known in the

art. Present invention lacks technical

advancement as compared to the existing

knowledge and is obvious to a person skilled in

the art. Also, in effect of the traditional

knowledge cow dung (cow dung cake), ghee,

butter usage as fuel, neem/lemon leaves as insect

repellent and panchagavya usage as organic

manure is known. Considering the prior art

documents already described cow dung, ghee,

milk, butter, nem, lemon, peepal tree for the same

purpose, optimizing by adding further

18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

ingredients (cow urine, butter) is normal routine

work for the skilled person and cannot be

considered inventive as such unless such

additional ingredients endow additional

surprising effects with respect to the prior art.

Hence, claims 1-2 lack inventive step under

Section 2(1)(j)(a) of the Patents Act, 1970.”

16. With specific reference to D3, the second respondent

considered the submissions made by the appellant to distinguish the

claimed invention from D3 and, thereafter, recorded findings. The

relevant extracts as set out below:

“As regards to D3, applicant stated that

D3 is acknowledged prior art which teaches a

lamp made up of cow dung, ghee and essential oil

(lemon grass). It is submitted that D3 teaches a

lamp made up of dry form of cow dung based

mixture which will not be able to withstand the

pressure (900-1100 PSI) and temperature of 100°

C during the moulding process for making the

lamp of the present invention. D3 does not

comprise cow butter which acts as a binding

19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

agent and along with specific mixture of leaves of

Neem tree (Azadirachta indica) lemon tree

(Citrus Limon) and Peepal tree (Ficus religiosa)

helps to withstand the pressure (900-1100PSI)

and temperature of 100° C during the moulding

process for making the lamp of the present

invention. It is submitted that the Dry form of

cow dung based mixture of D3 will not be able to

withstand the pressure (900-1100PSI) and

temperature of 100° C. Hence the lamp of the

present invention is different from the lamp made

up of dry cow dung based mixture of D3 and

inventive over D3.”

“D3 discloses diyas prepared with cow

dung, ghee and essential oil (lemon grass) which

can be used as a fertilizer and can also use as

mosquito repellents. D3 further states that

“The fragrance coming from these lamps

not only sparks fragrance around you, but also

the negativity surrounding this fragrance will be

removed. The scent of lemon, mint and lavender

will give you complete rest by relaxing your

nerves. You can illuminate your Diwali in many

ways with the light of these lamps. Thee lamps

20 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

are easily available in the market of Diwali, made

of cow dung and pure ghee in a cow shed away

from the city...”

Thus D3 also discloses the mosquito-repelling

lamps made up of cow dung, cow ghee and

essential oils and the utility is also the same as

mentioned in the above Para. Here the

inventiveness of the claimed composition when

compared with D3 is not demonstrated. Hence the

subject matter of claims are known in view of D3.

17. Eventually, upon considering the appellant's contention

that the ingredients were combined in specific proportions and that

the lamp was made by using specific pressure and temperature

ranges, the following conclusions were drawn:

“Selection of known ingredients with a

particular ratio in a composition is obvious and

can only be regarded as inventive if the claimed

composition shows unexpected effect. Since no

such effect is indicated and supported in the

application, the subject mater of claim 1 and 2

does not involve an inventive step. Thus in

combined view of the cited documents D1, D2 and

D3, it is obvious to the person skilled in the art to

21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

construe the claimed composition from D1

comprises cow dung, neem paste, cow ghee, cow

milk, Neem and Pipal tree bark and from the

available knowledge of D2 and D3 therefore

render the claims obvious.

Hence claims 1 and 2 do not involve any

technical advance as compared to the existing

knowledge with reference to the cited documents

and there is no inventive ingenuity and obvious

to try for a person skilled in the art when he

knows the use of the cow products from D1 and

obvious combine with other documents to bring

out with the claimed subject matter.”

In effect, the respondents concluded that the claimed invention lacks

technical advancement compared to existing knowledge and would

be obvious to a person skilled in the art.

18. Whether the alleged failure to consider the SGS report

vitiates the above findings warrants a brief discussion. The SGS

report specifies that the samples were not collected by SGS. In that

22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

factual context, materiality and weight cannot be attached to the

results reported therein. Without prejudice to the above, even

assuming that the below detection level carbon emissions, as

indicated in the SGS report, does constitute a technical advancement,

it has to be examined whether it would be obvious to PSITA. The

claimed invention makes use of ingredients which are not only

traditionally known, but known to have carbon neutral effects.

Therefore, the reduced carbon footprint due to the usage of these

ingredients in the lamp is merely incidental and is because of the

known properties of the ingredients used therein. Therefore, the SGS

report does not advance the cause of the appellant. Consideration of

the prior art documents is necessary to test the tenability of the above

conclusions.

19. Prior art document D1 was published on 10.06.2017. It

discloses a composition of cow dung, cow milk, cow ghee, neem

and peepal tree barks. It is a method for preparing a herbal mosquito

repellent. While there is commonality in some of the ingredients

used in prior art D1, prior art D1 does not deal with a lamp. On

23 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

examining prior art D1, it cannot be concluded that there is a

coherent thread leading from the said prior art to the claimed

invention. In other words, solely on the basis of D1, it cannot be said

that the claimed invention would be obvious to the PSITA.

20. Having concluded the above, it is pertinent to examine

whether D1 combined with other prior arts would make the

invention obvious to PSITA. Prior art D2 is non-patent literature,

namely, an article authored by Mandavgane titled “Development of

cow dung based herbal mosquito repellent” and was published by

the Department of Chemical Engineering, Priyadarshini Institute of

Engineering and Technology, on 11.04.2005. It is also a herbal

mosquito repellent composition. Out of the ingredients contained in

the claimed invention, it is evident from table 1 of D2 that D2 also

contains cow dung and neem. However, the other ingredients of the

claimed invention are not present in D2.

21. As regards D3, it is non-patent literature disclosing the

preparation of eco-friendly lamps/diyas from cow dung. Learned

24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

counsel for the appellant relied on Sections 29(2) and 31(d) of the

Patents Act to contend that the said provisions shield the claimed

invention against rejection in light of D3. This contention is fallacious

for more than one reason. First, both Sections 29 and 31 pertain to

anticipation, and not to obviousness. Secondly, in order to claim the

benefit of Section 29(2), the appellant should prove that the matter

published was obtained from him. Although the appellant makes

such assertion, the appellant has failed to prove that the material for

D3 was so obtained. In addition, Section 31(d) applies only if the the

true and first inventor provided a description of the invention in a

paper read by him in a learned society or published with his consent

by said society and such inventor applies for a patent not later than

twelve months thereafter. Such is clearly not the case as regards D3.

Therefore, D3 is pertinent for the obviousness analysis.

22. D3 discloses the production of lamps from cow dung, ghee

and essential oils. While it is true that prior art documents D1 and

D2 do not teach, motivate or suggest the production of lamps from

cow dung, cow urine and cow ghee and the like, D3 clearly discloses

25 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

the production of diyas from cow dung, ghee and essential oils.

Undoubtedly, on comparison of D3 and the claimed invention, all the

ingredients are not common. The relevant question, however, is not

whether there are differences between the cited prior art and the

claimed invention but whether the claimed invention would be

obvious to a person skilled in the art based on the prior art.

23. The person skilled in the art would be a person with the

requisite skill set to produce lamps from natural / traditional

ingredients such as cow dung. The question that falls for

consideration is whether such person would be able to arrive at the

claimed invention, without the benefit of hindsight, on the basis of

the cited prior art. Both D1 and D2 disclose the use of traditional

ingredients such as cow dung in the manufacture of mosquito

repellents. D3 discloses the use of cow dung, ghee and essential oils

in the production of lamps/diya. Knowledge of the cited prior art

26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

should be imputed to the person skilled in the art. Common general

knowledge should also be imputed to such person. The appellant

claims that each ingredient is required to be used in specific

proportions within the ranges indicated in the claims. In discussing

whether such routine experimentation could be considered inventive,

it was held in Genentech Inc v Hospira, 946 F.3d 1333 that “when the

general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not

inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine

experimentation”. Thus, once the ingredients are part of traditional

knowledge, working out the optimum ranges and proportions is a

matter of routine experimentation and cannot be construed as

inventive. I am bolstered in this conclusion because D3 discloses, not

merely the use of some common ingredients, but also their use in the

production of diyas. Therefore, when armed with the knowledge of

D1 to D3, in my view, the claimed invention would be obvious to the

person skilled in the art.

24. In light of the conclusions that the claimed invention is

patent ineligible under Section 3(p) and would be obvious to a person

skilled in the art on the basis of the cited prior art and common

27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

general knowledge, there is no infirmity in the order rejecting the

patent application. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the

impugned order.

25. For reasons set out above, (T)CMA(PT) No.146 of 2023 is

dismissed without any order as to costs.

05.07.2024

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

Neutral Citation : Yes / No

To

1. The Controller of Patents & Designs

Chennai Intellectual Property Building

G.S.T.Road, Guindy,

Chennai-600 032.

2. Assistant Controller of Patents,

Patent Office, Intellectual Property Office Building,

G.S.T.Road, Guindy,

Chennai-600 032.

28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J

kal

Pre-delivery judgment made in

(T)CMA(TM) No.40 of 2023

29 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

05.07.2024

30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis