C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 1 of 34

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 29

th

May, 2026

+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024

THE NIPPON SIGNAL CO., LTD. .....Appellant

Through: Ms. Kanu Priya, Mr. Saransh

Vijayvargiya and Mr. Daksh Oberoi, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS

.....Respondent

Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.

Om Ram and Ms. Nikita Singh, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

JYOTI SINGH, J.

1. This appeal is filed on behalf of the Appellant under Section 117A of

the Patents Act, 1970 (‘1970 Act’) laying a challenge to order dated

18.07.2024 passed by the Respondent under Section 15 refusing grant of

Patent in Indian Patent Application No. 201617036284 as also for a

direction to the Respondent to grant the patent for the claimed invention on

the revised claims.

2. To the extent necessary, case set up in the appeal is that the

Appellant, which is a Japanese company filed a patent application in India

bearing No.201617036284 on 24.10.2016 based on PCT application

No.PCT/JP2015/059970 dated 30.03.2015 in respect of invention titled

“REDUNDANT CONTROL DEVICE AND SYSTEM SWITCHING

METHOD”. Request for Examination was made on 12.03.2018 and First

Examination Report (‘FER’) was issued on 11.02.2021 by the Patent Office,

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 2 of 34

response to which was filed by the Appellant on 25.06.2021. Hearing was

conducted on 02.02.2024, whereafter Appellant filed post-hearing written

submissions with revised claims on 15.02.2024. By impugned order dated

18.07.2024, Respondent refused the application and the order was received

by the Appellant on 18.07.2024.

3. As stated, present invention relates to a redundant control device

including an active system and a standby system and a method for switching

systems therefor. The object of the claimed invention is to provide a low-

cost redundant control device that does not distinguish a main system from a

subordinate system and thereby shortens the system switchover period and a

method for switching systems therefor. To achieve this object, the invention

provides a redundant control device including an active system and a

standby system, both of which operate in sync with each other, which means

that when the active system detects an error, the information is sent to the

standby system to disable output control data of the active system and

switch to output control data of the standby system. This avoids

discontinuity in output control data, which may possibly occur with the

system switchover. Thus, the active and standby systems have a coordinated

relationship not a master-subordinate relationship.

4. It is stated that prior to the switchover to the output control data of the

standby system, the standby system receives the error detection information

from the active system so that the latter can be smoothly switched to the

standby system. Unlike the conventional techniques, neither the function nor

the circuit configuration is required for comparing the calculation result

from the active and standby systems and this shortens the system switchover

period and saves cost. Additionally, the system switchover is carried out

depending on whether the active system detects an error without any

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 3 of 34

processing for comparing calculation result from the active and standby

systems by using mirror memory. Even if both systems are installed apart

from each other, layout can be easily realized and there is no necessity to

dispose the two systems close to each other and moreover, a relay for

switching the active to the standby system can be omitted, which shortens a

system switchover period and saves cost. Specifically, the present invention

is applicable to a train control, in which case the active and standby systems

are installed separately in the front and last cars of the train. According to

this installation, two dual on-board controllers i.e., a dual on-board

controller mounted on the first car and a dual on-board controller mounted

on the last car can be reduced by half i.e., a single dual on-board controller

composed of an active system mounted on the first car and the standby

system mounted on the last car, which results in remarkable reduction of the

cost. Therefore, by this invention it is possible to provide a low-cost

redundant control device that does not distinguish a main system from a

subordinate system to shorten a switchover period and a method for

switching systems. Diagrammatically represented Figure 2, which illustrates

an example of the redundant control device applied to a train controller is as

follows:-

Figure 2

5. It is stated that the synchronized active system and the standby system

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 4 of 34

include the available existing hardware such as CPUs serving as a control

unit and a synchronous circuit for driving the CPUs in sync with each other

and both systems mutually transmit/receive information by serial

transmission. Working of the invention is explained that the output control

data of the active system or output control data of the standby system are

input to a controlled device by use of an external interface unit and an output

control data line. When the active system detects an error, information is

sent to the standby system to disable the output control data of the active

system and switch to output control data of standby system and prior to the

switchover the standby system receives the error detection information and

hence, the active system can be smoothly switched off to the standby

system. In a general operating condition, the output control data of the active

system is sent to the controlled device via the output control data line and

although, the output control data of the standby system is disabled similar to

the active system, the standby system receives information from the control

device and operates equivalent to the active system to prepare for the error.

When the active system operates normally, its cycle should be correct and a

periodic timer of the standby system is adjusted to that of the active system

via the synchronous line. When the active system next detects an error, the

information is sent to the standby system from the active system. At the time

when systems are switched in the next cycle, the output control data of the

active system is disabled and switched to the output control data of the

standby system. Both systems work in syc with each other, whereby it is

possible to avoid discontinuity between the output control data and

synchronous line, which may possibly occur with the system switchover.

Unlike conventional configurations, neither the functions nor the circuit

configurations is required for comparing calculations results from the active

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 5 of 34

and standby systems and this contributes to reduction in system switchover

period as well as cost. After the output control data of the active system is

disabled and switched to one of the standby system, if the active system still

detects an error, the active system is stopped. The pending claims 1-5 are as

follows:-

“We claim:

1. A redundant control device used for a train controller in which

an active system (11) and a standby system (12) that are separately

disposed in a front car (T1) and a last car (Tn) among train cars

(T1, T2, ..., and Tn), the active system (11) and the standby system

(12) being connected via lines (31, 32) and transmitting and

receiving information by serial transmission, the redundant

control device being a low cost device that does not distinguish a

main system from a subordinate system, to thereby shorten a

system switchover period,

characterized in that:

the active system (11) and the standby system (12) operate in sync

with each other, and

if the active system (11) detects an error, the active system (11)

sends error detection information (S12) to the standby system (12), and

then, output control data (S31) of the active system (11) is disabled and is

switched to output control data (S32) of the standby system (12), and

if the active system (11) still detects an error, the active system

(11) is confirmed as having failed, and is stopped.

2. The redundant control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein after the

output control data (S32) of the standby system (12) is used, if the active

system (11) detects no error, the output control data (S31) of the active

system (11) is used.

3. The redundant control device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the active

system (11) and the standby system (12) include a CPU (111, 121) and an

interface unit (112, 122), and supply output control data (S32) from the

interface unit (112, 122) to a controlled device (5) via an output control

data line (33).

4. A method for switching systems for a redundant control device used for

a train controller in which an active system (11) and a standby system

(12) that are separately disposed in a front car (T1) and a last car (Tn)

among train cars (T1, T2, ..., and Tn), the active system (11) and the

standby system (12) being connected via lines (31, 32) and transmitting

and receiving information by serial transmission, the redundant control

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 6 of 34

device being low cost device that does not distinguish a main system from

a subordinate system to thereby shorten a system switchover period,

comprising the steps of:

synchronizing the active system (11) and the standby system (12) in

sync with each other;

sending from the active system (11), if the active system (11) detects

an error, error detection information (S12) to the standby system (12);

disabling output control data (S31) of the active system (11) and

switching to output control data (S32) of the standby system (12); and

stopping the active system (11) itself if the active system (11) still

detects an error at a next cycle.

5. The method for switching systems as claimed in claim 4, wherein at the

next cycle after the step in which the output control data (S31) of the

active system (11) is disabled and switched to the output control data

(S32) of the standby system (12), if the active system (11) detects no error,

further comprising the step of disabling the output control data (S32) of

the standby system (12) and switching to the output control data (S31) of

the active system (11).”

6. It is stated that after the application was examined under Sections 12

and 13 of 1970 Act, FER was issued on 11.02.2021 raising objections of

lack of novelty, lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja), non-

patentability under Section 3(k), insufficiency of disclosure and lack of

clarity and conciseness. Appellant sent two replies to the FER dated

25.06.2021 pointing out at the outset that it had amended the claims to

remedy the objections in accordance with provisions of Section 57(6) albeit

the same may not be treated as acquiescence to the objections and the

amendment was made only to expedite prosecution of the application.

Amended set of claims 1-5 were submitted with the reply and independent

claim 1 was revised by incorporating features of claims 3, 5 and 6. Original

claims 3-6 and 10 were deleted and dependent claims were suitably revised

to replace the dependency clause. Amended set of claims were prefaced with

the opening clause ‘We Claim’. Detailed submissions were made contesting

the objections. After considering the reply, hearing notice was sent wherein

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 7 of 34

objections pertaining to lack of inventive step and non-patentability were

shown as outstanding. After oral hearing, post-hearing written submissions

were filed by the Appellant, however, by the impugned order the application

was refused by the Respondent on lack of inventive step under Section

2(1)(ja), owing to cited prior arts D1 and D2. Relevant part of the impugned

order is as follows:-

“7. Now, I turn my attention to the claimed subject matter. The subject

matter as described and claimed relates to redundant control device for a

train controller features an active system and a standby system, positioned

separately in the front car (T1) and the last car (Tn) of the train. These

systems are interconnected via lines and communicate using serial

transmission. This cost-effective device does not differentiate between a

main and a subordinate system, thereby reducing the system switchover

time. The active and standby systems operate in synchronization. If the

active system detects an error, it sends error detection information to the

standby system. Subsequently, the active system disables its output control

data, switching to the output control data of the standby system. If the

error persists, the active system is confirmed to have failed and is stopped.

8. With regard to the substantive objection under the header “invention

u/s 2(1)(j)” of the said Hearing notice, the applicant has submitted that

“…The Applicant submits that the characterized features in independent

claim 1 are neither explicitly nor implicitly taught in any cited prior art

documents. Particularly, the aboveunderlined features of claim 1 are not

disclosed in any of the cited documents, considered alone…

… The cited prior art D1 discloses a duplexed system for an

operation processor, but it does not specify that it relates to

trains…

… advantageous effects are disclosed in para [0038] and [0039]

of the description. In particular, the two dual on-board controllers,

i.e. the dual on-board controller mounted on the front car T1 and

the dual onboard controller mounted on the last car Tn as in the

conventional configuration, can be reduced by half, i.e. a single

dual on-board controller composed of the active system 11

mounted on the first car T1 and the standby system 12 mounted on

the last car Tn. As a result, the cost can be considerably saved. In

addition, a period for switching the active system 11 to the standby

system 12 can be shortened and thus, a signal transmission time

consumed by the switchover can be saved. It is accordingly

possible to execute precise train control; for example, a train

interval can be reduced to enhance the operational efficiency or

the like…

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 8 of 34

… the present invention according to claim 1 involves a technical

advance as compared to the prior arts and having economic

significance, i.e. the cost can be considerably saved. In addition, a

period for switching the active system to the standby system can be

shortened and thus, a signal transmission time consumed by the

switchover can be saved. Further, it is accordingly possible to

execute precise train control; for example, a train interval can be

reduced to enhance the operational efficiency or the like…

… None of the cited documents, D1-D2, either alone or in

combination disclose or even hint a solution according to the

independent claim 1 of the present invention…

9. Regarding the above submission, it is noted that, in F. Hoffmann-La

Roche Ltd vs Cipla Ltd case (2012), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court had

observed that the obviousness test is what is laid down in Biswanath

Prasad Radhey Shyam vs Hindustan Metal Industries Ltd (AIR 1982 SC

1444), and stated that “....normal and grammatical meaning of the said

person who is skilled in art would presuppose that the said person would

have the knowledge and the skill in the said field of art and will not be

unknown to a particular field of art and it is from that angle one has to see

that if the said document which is prior patent if placed in the hands of the

said person skilled in art whether he will be able to work upon the same in

the workshop and achieve the desired result leading to patent which is

under challenge. If the answer comes in affirmative, then certainly the

said invention under challenge is anticipated by the prior art or in other

words, obvious to the person skilled in art as a mere workshop result and

otherwise it is not…”

10. In the view of the above, it is understood that the person skilled in the

art is a competent craftsman or engineer as distinguished from a mere

artisan. Hence, in the instant application, the person skilled in the art is a

normal technical engineer. In the instant application, the person skilled in

the art would be a person who has knowledge about the disclosure of D1,

D2 and foundational knowledge on which the disclosure of D1 and D2 is

based.

11. Without prejudice to the submission of the agent, D1 is the closest

prior art, which discloses Regarding claim 1, a duplexed operation

processor control system includes CPU1 and CPU2 which are identical

and having a communication path for communication between them, data

to be snooped by a CPU2 of the subordinate system as a stand-by system

from a CPU1 of the main system as an execution system are set as control

information from a control target to be acquired by the CPU of the main

system. D1 discloses that Primary CPU 1 actually sends a control

command to the control target, the secondary CPU 2 does not control the

control target and is in a stand-by state ready to be switched over when a

trouble occurs in the primary CPU 1 (refer paragraph[0011], [0018]-

[0059], figure 1). D1 provides a dual control system, the slave system

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 9 of 34

CPU as a standby system is configured to Snoop data from the master

system CPU as an execution system and control information retrieved

from the control object by the master system CPU.

Applicant submitted that Claim 1 differs from Cited Document D1 & D2

“the active system (11) and the standby system (12) operate in sync with

each other, and if the active system (11) detects an error, the active system

(11) sends error detection information (S12) to the standby system (12),

and then, output control data (S31) of the active system (11) is disabled

and is switched to output control data (S32) of the standby system (12),

and if the active system (11) still detects an error, the active system (11) is

confirmed as having failed, and is stopped.”

However D1 discloses regarding claim 1 the active system (11) and the

standby system (12) operate in sync with each other, and if the active

system (11) detects an error, the active system (11) sends error detection

information (S12) to the standby system (12), and then, output control data

(S31) of the active system (11) is disabled and is switched to output

control data (S32) of the standby system (12)(refer paragraphs[0023],

[0029]- [0046], figure 1), and if the active system (11) still detects an

error, the active system (11) is confirmed as having failed, and is stopped

(implicitly disclosed by D1, refer figure 5 and paragraphs [0061]-[0065]

and D2).

D1 discloses (refer paragraphs [0061]-[0065]) that “how to perform the

primary/secondary CPU switch-over process in another condition. In this

condition, the secondary CPU does not consecutively confirm arrivals of

snooping request-related frames to be sent from the primary CPU if in a

normal state. In the control cycle time, if the secondary CPU 2 cannot

confirm several consecutive times arrival of the snoop request frame, the

snooping result request frame and the healthy status frame that are to be

periodically sent from the primary CPU 1 when the CPU 1 normally

operates, the secondary CPU 2 determines that the primary CPU 1 is

currently in trouble. Note that this trouble may be checked by using a

time-out detection preconfigured in the communication paths 5 and 6. At

this time, the secondary CPU 2 switches over to the primary by itself,

acquires the authority to use the communication path 5 and outputs the

CPU switch-over request frame to the I/O 3 . When receiving the CPU

switch-over request frame 51, the I/O 3 sends the CPU switch-over

acknowledge frame to the CPU 2 via the communication path 5 , and then

the CPU 2 switches over to the primary by itself starts to control the

system. Thereafter, the CPU 1 that has been detected to be currently in

trouble will not be switched over to the primary.”

Therefore it is disclosed by D1 that when an error· is detected by the

system, a failure of the system is determined, and only the standby system

performs operation control. As such, those skilled in the art will readily

recognize that when the system fails, the system's action is halted is thus

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 10 of 34

evident for a person skilled in the art in combination with common general

knowledge in the art and D1.

Moreover D2 discloses regarding dual system where on-board controller

which generates position information is transmitted to the ground control

device via a standby dual system, in a train control system being a dual

system. The input of the received data from the ground control device and

the train control based on the input are performed via a parallel dual

system. When a main system causes failure, the location information of a

slave system is informed to the ground control device by switching the

connection with an on-train radio set from the main system to the slave

system by a switching mechanism. Moreover D2 discloses that on-board

controller issues a command to stop the train when an error between the

position information and the position information received from the

ground control device is out of an allowable range.

Therefore, at the time of the alleged invention, it would have been obvious

to a person skilled in the art to arrive at the said claimed features of the

instant alleged invention in the light of D1, D2 and common general

knowledge. Further, the subject matter of the alleged invention would

have been obvious in the course of normal research, experimentation and

trial & error. Hence, the claimed subject matter of the independent claim

1 is obvious and lacks inventive step under section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents

Act, 1970 (as amended).

Without prejudice, the claimed subject matter of the dependent claims 2 to

5 falls within the scope of the independent claim. Since the independent

claims are found to involve no inventive step over the cited art as detailed

in the preceding paragraph, the claimed subject matter of their subsequent

dependent claims is also rendered obvious and not inventive mutatis

mutandis.

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, it is concluded that the subject matter

of claims 1 through 5 in this instant application lacks inventive step. As

such, the substantive objection under the header “invention u/s 2(1)(j)” of

the said Hearing notice still holds good. Therefore, the claimed subject

does not constitute an ‘Invention’ as defined under section 2(1)(j) of The

Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).

Now, looking at the statutory provisions, the definition of invention is

given in the section 2(1)(j)- "invention" means a new product or process

involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application;

The section 2(1)(ja) defines inventive step- "inventive step" means a

feature of an 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;

The last part of the definition says- that makes the invention not obvious to

a person skilled in the art. This part is added with the earlier part with the

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 11 of 34

conjunction ‘and’, which makes the last part a mandatory condition to be

fulfilled.

Now, it has been evident now that if D1 and D2 are combined with

common general knowledge, the feature as contested by the agents of the

applicant does not become notobvious to a person skilled in the art. In the

absence of this mandatory condition, the instant application cannot be

said to involve an ‘inventive step’. Consequently, it is not an ‘invention’

within the meaning of ‘the’ Act.

Hence, in view of the aforementioned facts, the objections as regards not

involving an ‘inventive step’ being raised from the stage of First

Examination Report (F.E.R.) persist.

12. It is noted that the oral argument and the written submission of the

agent of the applicant have been carefully considered. However without

prejudice, although the hearing submissions have attempted to address the

other requirements, yet the substantive requirement of the Patents Act,

1970 i.e. Section 2(1)(ja) is not found complied with. Hence, in view of the

above and unmet requirements, this instant application is not found in

order for grant.

13. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts, the submissions of the

agents during hearing and subsequently through the written submission,

as well as the outstanding official requirements, instant application no.

201617036284 dated 24/10/2016 does not comply with the requirements

of The Patents Act, 1970 (as amended). I, therefore, hereby order that the

grant of a patent for application no. 201617036284 is refused under the

provisions of Section 15 of The Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).”

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the impugned order is

untenable in law. Respondent has failed to consider the detailed submissions

made in response to the FER and post-hearing written submissions as also

the fact that claims were amended to address the objections raised in the

FER and hearing notice. The amended set of claims 1-5 involve inventive

step and are compliant with Section 2(1)(ja) of 1970 Act and therefore,

Respondent has erred in holding that the claimed invention lacks inventive

step in view of prior arts D1 and D2. Respondent continued to rely on the

objections raised and referred to D1 and D2 but as the order reflects there is

no consideration of the differences brought out by the Appellant, which if

considered, would have highlighted that a person skilled in the art could

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 12 of 34

never be motivated from the teachings of D1 and D2 to reach the claimed

invention. Non-consideration of the written submissions is a reason good

enough to set aside the order as held by this Court in Boehringer Ingelheim

Vetmedica GMBH v. Controller of Patents, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8578.

8. It was urged that cited prior arts D1 and D2 do not disclose the

features of claimed invention, taken individually or in combination and the

person skilled in the art would not receive any suggestion or motivation

from the cited documents to modify any technique disclosed to work as in

the claimed invention. Independent claim 1 of the present application is a

redundant control device used for a train controller in which an active

system and a standby system operate in sync with each other and

conceptually have a coordinated relationship and not a master-subordinate

relationship. The synchronized active and standby systems include existing

hardware such as CPUs serving as a control unit and a synchronous circuit

for driving the CPUs in sync with each other. The systems mutually

transmit/receive information by serial transmission. When the active system

detects an error, error detection information is sent to the standby system to

disable the output control data of the active system and switch to the output

control data of the standby system. Prior to the switchover, the standby

system has received the error detection information from the active

system and thus the active system can be smoothly switched to the standby

system.

9. It was argued that the characterized features in independent claim 1

are neither explicitly nor implicitly taught in any cited prior art document.

D1 discloses a duplexed system for an operation processor but does not

specify that it relates to trains. Present invention, according to claim 1

discloses a redundant control device used for a train controller in which an

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 13 of 34

active system and a standby system that are separately disposed in a front

car and a last car among train cars; the active system and the standby system

being connected and transmitting and receiving information by serial

transmission; and the redundant control device being a low-cost device that

does not distinguish a main system from a subordinate system, to thereby

shorten a system switchover period. The advantageous effects as disclosed

in paras [0038] and [0039] of the description are: (a) the two dual on-board

controllers can be reduced by half and as a result cost is considerably saved;

and (b) period for switching the active system to standby system can be

shortened and thus the signal transmission time consumed by switchover can

be saved. It is then possible to execute precise train control, for example, a

train interval can be reduced to enhance the operational efficacy or the like.

These advantages are specific to a case where device is used for a train

controller and could not be conceived in D1, which is directed to a duplexed

system for operational processor and does not teach that it relates to trains.

10. It was argued that Respondent has erred in refusing the application by

taking D2 as the closest prior art. No doubt, D2 discloses a train control

system but in D2, the train location information found by the on-train

control device is transmitted to the ground control device via a standby dual

system in a train control system being a dual system. The ground control

device searches control information of a rear train based on the location

information and then regulates brake control based on information

transmitted from the ground device. The input of the received data from the

ground device and the train control based on the input are performed via

parallel dual system. It was explained that in D2, when a main system fails,

the location information of a slave system is informed to the ground device

by switching the connection with an on-train radio set from the main system

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 14 of 34

to the slave system by a switching mechanism. Thus, D2 does not disclose

the configuration of the present invention as claimed in claim 1 i.e., a single

dual on-board controller composed of the active system mounted on the first

car and standby system mounted on the last car and cannot be an

impediment to refuse the instant application.

11. It was argued that Section 2(1)(ja) defines ‘inventive step’ to mean a

feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to

existing knowledge or has economic significance or both and that makes the

invention non-obvious to a person skilled in the art. Going by the definition,

claim 1 of the present invention involves a technical advance over prior arts

and has economic significance as it reduces the cost considerably. The

period for switching the active system to the standby system can be

shortened resulting in reduction of signal transmission time. It is accordingly

possible to execute precise train control such as reduction of train interval to

enhance operational efficacy. None of the cited documents D1 or D2

motivate a person skilled in the art to modify any technique disclosed in

claim 1 and at least due to the presence of characterized features therein, it

cannot be said that the invention lacks inventive step.

12. Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned CGSC appearing for the Respondent

argued that the subject application was processed in accordance with

provisions of the 1970 Act and refuted that the impugned order is a non-

speaking or unreasoned order. Referring to the claimed invention, more

particularly, independent claim 1, it was submitted that the invention lacks

inventive step and does not fulfil the parameters of Section 2(1)(ja) of there

being a technical advance as compared to existing knowledge or economic

significance or both and that the invention should not be obvious to a person

skilled in the art. Cited prior arts D1 and D2, whether taken alone or in

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 15 of 34

combination, fully disclose, suggest and teach the claimed invention in its

entirety.

13. Elaborating the point, it was urged that D1 specifically discloses the

claimed invention by describing a duplexed CPU control system with a

primary and a secondary CPU, where the primary CPU controls the

operation and the secondary snoops data while in a standby mode with

communication paths. The secondary CPU performs data snooping as the

primary CPU acquires control data. If the primary CPU fails, the secondary

CPU takes over seamlessly, ensuring no data loss or delay in control

operations. D1 also details how the control program can be updated on

secondary CPU without requiring a shutdown of the plant system and with

no additional functionality needed for this update process. Therefore, all

elements of claimed invention, including duplexed operation, failover and

ability to perform program updates without interrupting plant operations are

explicitly disclosed in D1 which thus describes a fault-tolerant system.

Failure to receive messages triggers the secondary CPU to automatically

assume control and once the primary CPU is confirmed as faulty, it is

effectively removed from the operation. This system supports synchronized

operation, fault detection and autonomous control switchover without fixed

master/slave designation, mirroring the functionality claimed. D1 further

discloses system configuration with dual CPUs and communication circuitry

and describes the ability of one CPU to assume control when the other fails.

14. It was further argued that D2 describes a train control system and is a

dual-system configuration comprising a main system and a slave system that

is held on standby. A switching mechanism designed to transfer operational

control from the main system to the slave system in the event of a failure in

the main system is provided. D2 discloses the method wherein this

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 16 of 34

switchover is seamlessly executed such that an external ground control

device continues to receive necessary information without interruption or

recognition of the on-board system failure and the explicit purpose is to

ensure the operation rate of the train i.e., system availability and reliability.

It is thus evident that concept of using a secondary standby control system to

takeover from a failed primary system to prevent operational downtime is

already known from D2.

15. Ms. Raman vehemently denied that there is no detailed technical

analysis by the Respondent in the impugned order. Respondent has carried

out analysis as required in the concerned regime in line with the law laid

down by the Supreme Court in Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v.

Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511, where it was held that

obvious variations of known technology do not constitute an invention. Even

though Appellant pointed out differences in the prior arts, more particularly,

with respect to D1 urging that it does not specify that it relates to trains, the

technology in the claimed invention, which employs duplexing for system

reliability, is widely known in the industry, particularly in control systems

and electronic devices and therefore, a mere use of the device in the train

control system is not an invention and at the highest is an application of the

technology. The dual structure of the system could easily be adapted for use

in trains by a skilled engineer. Moreover, placement of the systems in train

cars is an obvious modification as it is only a routine design choice for train

systems and so is the placement of redundant systems across spatially

distributed compartments for reliability or fail-safe design. Most

importantly, the characterized portion of the final claims makes it clear that

redundant control device is claimed on a standalone basis without any

specific features of the train controller.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 17 of 34

16. It was also argued that purported advantages such as faster switchover

or cost-effectiveness are expected and inherent results of implementing

known redundant control/duplexing systems techniques and are not

inventive. D1 explicitly teaches switching control outputs upon fault

detection. Self-diagnostic features prompting shutdown of the faulty system

aligned with common engineering practices and their application in the train

control domain is an obvious adaptation. While there is no explicit mention

of applying a duplex control CPU in D1 to the train field, the dual structure

of D1 can easily be adapted to the train field by a person skilled in the art. In

D1 the waiting system CPU2 performs a function of operating system CPU1

upon detecting an error in the operating system. Further, D1 suggests that if

the self-diagnostics of the paternal line indicate an error, the person skilled

in the art, normally a technical engineer may stop the operation of the

paternal line to ensure stable and energy efficient system operation.

Therefore, as rightly held by the Respondent claimed invention lacks

inventive step owing to prior arts D1 and D2.

17. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Appellant urged that the mere

fact that both the claimed invention and D1 and D2 fall within the broad

domain of redundant duplex control systems, does not negate inventive step.

In Avery Dennison Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs, 2022

SCC OnLine Del 3659, this Court held that simplicity does not defeat

patentability. Respondent contends that adapting duplex control to trains is a

routine field-of-use choice, however, the placement and interconnection in

the claimed invention are not conventional. It is settled that inventive step

must be assessed on a holistic basis and not by dissecting individual

non-components. The Calcutta High Court held in Groz-Beckert KG v.

Union of India, MANU/WB/0140/2023, that it is not sufficient to conclude

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 18 of 34

obviousness by isolating individual known parts. If the logic of the

Respondent is accepted that obvious variations of known technology do not

constitute invention, then no invention which is a combination of known

techniques would ever proceed for patent.

18. It was argued that D1 and D2 neither teach nor suggest placement in

separated train cars with the dedicated sync line, ensuring perfect phase

alignment without handshake latency. Respondent suggests that applying

redundant control to trains is an obvious adaptation, however, generic

application of duplexing to trains would not inherently produce the specific

claimed architecture i.e., physically separated controllers linked by serial

lines. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in Biomoneta

Research Pvt. Ltd. v. Controller General of Patents Designs and Another,

2023 SCC OnLine Del 1482, where it was held that if there is synergistic

combination or a working interrelation which produces a new and

improved result, the subject matter is patentable. Reliance of the

Respondent on the judgment in Biswanath Prasad (supra) is misplaced.

The invention at hand is not a ‘workshop variant’ cosmetic aggregation. It

represents an architecturally distinct design with new capabilities and no

person skilled in the art, even with routine knowledge, would arrive at this

invention. In this backdrop, it was urged that the impugned order be set

aside and direction be issued to the Respondent to grant patent on the instant

application.

19. Heard learned counsels for the parties and examined their rival

submissions.

20. Instant patent application dated 30.03.2015 relates to an invention

titled “REDUNDANT CONTROL DEVICE AND SYSTEM SWITCHING

METHOD”. Respondent refused the application for grant of patent for lack

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 19 of 34

of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of 1970 Act basis prior arts D1 and

D2. The claimed invention is a redundant control device including an active

system and a standby system and a method for switching systems therefor.

As explained and also evident from the complete specification, object of the

claimed invention is to provide a low-cost redundant control device that

does not distinguish a main system from a subordinate system to shorten a

system switchover period and a method for switching systems. The active

system and the standby system operate in sync with each other. When the

active system detects an error, error detection information is sent to the

standby system to thereby disable output control data of the active system

and switch to output control data of the standby system. The active and

standby systems operate in sync in order to avoid discontinuity in output

control data, which may possibly occur with the system switchover. The

invention is applicable to train control, where the active and the standby

systems are installed separately in the front and last cars of the train. Given

the installation, two dual on-board controllers i.e., a dual on-board controller

mounted on the first car and a dual on-board controller mounted on the last

car can be reduced by half i.e., a single dual on-board controller composed

of an active system mounted on the first car and the standby system mounted

on the last car, which remarkably reduces the cost. The inventor claims that

by the present invention, it is possible to provide a low-cost redundant

control device that does not distinguish a main system from a subordinate

system to thereby shorten a system switchover period and a method for

switching systems therefor. The synchronized active and standby systems

include existing hardware such as CPUs serving as a control unit and a

synchronous circuit for driving the CPUs in sync with each other. The

systems mutually transmit/receive information by serial transmission. When

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 20 of 34

the active system detects an error and the information is sent to the standby

system to disable the output control data of the active system and switch to

the output control data of the standby system. The standby system has in the

meantime already received the error detection information prior to the

switchover and thus, the active system smoothly switches to the standby

system. Block diagram illustrating the configuration of the redundant control

device of the claimed invention is Figure 1 and the diagram illustrating the

application of the device to a train controller is Figure 2 below:-

Figure 1

Figure 2

21. Case of the Appellant is that the application has been erroneously

refused citing prior arts D1 and D2, whereas neither D1 nor D2 considered

alone or in combination disclose, teach or suggest the features claimed in

independent claim 1, which is extracted in the earlier part of the judgment.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 21 of 34

Appellant submits that it was brought forth before the Respondent that D1

discloses a duplexed system for an operation processor, but does not specify

that it relates to trains. Present invention, on the other hand, relates to a

redundant control device use for a train controller and the advantageous

effects as disclosed in paras [0038] and [0039] of the description are

that the two dual on-board controllers can be reduced to half which saves

cost and switching period is shorten, whereby signal transmission time

consumed by switchover can be saved. This helps in executing precise train

control, for example, a train interval can be reduced to enhance the

operational efficacy. It is urged that these advantages are specific to a case,

where device is used for a train controller and D1 could not conceive these

advantages and hence, reliance on D1 by the Respondent was wholly

misplaced.

22. Appellant also sought to distinguish prior art D2 before the

Respondent and submitted that while D2 discloses a train control system but

the train location information found in the on-train control device is

transmitted to the ground control device via a standby dual system, in a train

control system being a dual system. The ground control device searches

control information of a last train based on the location information. The on-

train control device conducts brake control based on the control information

transmitted from the ground control device. The input of the received data

and the train control based on the input are performed via a parallel dual

system. When a main system causes failure, the location information of a

slave system is informed to the ground control device by switching the

connection with an on-train radio set from the main system to the slave

system by a switching mechanism. Thus, D2 does not disclose the

configuration of the present invention i.e., a single dual on-board controller

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 22 of 34

composed of the active system mounted on the first car and standby system

mounted on the last car and cannot defeat the claimed invention. None of the

cited prior arts, therefore, motivate a person skilled in the art to modify any

technique disclosed in claim 1 especially due to presence of characterized

features therein.

23. Appellant also brought forth before the Respondent that the claimed

invention involves an inventive step and compared to the prior arts it has

economic significance, whereby the cost can be considerably saved as also

technical advance since the period for switching the active system to the

standby system can be shortened, whereby signal transmission time

consumed by the switchover will be saved and further, it is possible to

execute precise train control. As an instance, it was cited that a train interval

can be reduced to enhance the operational efficacy. The assertion before the

Respondent was that the claimed invention introduces inventive operational

steps and functional interrelationships between components which have

distinct technical advantages and none of them are taught by D1 and D2.

Differences have been highlighted in a comparative chart as follows:-

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 23 of 34

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 24 of 34

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 25 of 34

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 26 of 34

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 27 of 34

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 28 of 34

24. The written submissions filed before the Respondent clearly reflect

that all these distinctions, which according to the Appellant are crucial, were

highlighted. However, a plain reading of the impugned order shows that

paragraphs 1 and 2 deal with the prosecution history and paragraph 3 refers

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 29 of 34

to objections raised in the hearing notice and response to the FER. Taking

note of the reply, one line observation is made that newly cited document

D2 along with D1 cited in the FER discloses the features in the invention.

Prior art D2 is then explained including the working of CPU1 and CPU2

therein but without any further consideration or reasoning, conclusion is

reached that subject matter of the claimed invention lacks inventive step

under Section 2(1)(j) of 1970 Act. Thereafter, Respondent refers to the

objections raised earlier on non-patentability under Section 3 and Section

10(4)(c) paragraphs 4 and 5 refer to the submissions made. Paragraph 6

reflects that Respondent considered D1 as cited in FER and hearing notice.

Paragraph 7 refers to the subject invention as described and paragraph 8

extracts the submission of the applicant. Paragraph 9 refers to the decision of

this Court in F. Hoffmann (supra) with regard to the obviousness test as

also the judgment in Biswanath Prasad (supra), for the proposition that

person skilled in the art would pre-suppose that the person has knowledge

and skill in the field of art concerned and from that angle one has to see if

the prior art document can be worked upon in the workshop to achieve the

subject invention under challenge. In paragraph 10, Respondent notes that

the person skilled in the art is a normal technical engineer and would have

knowledge of the disclosures in D1 and D2. In paragraph 11, Respondent

carries out analysis of D1 as the closest prior art and concludes that since

prior art discloses active and standby systems, which operate in sync with

each other and on detection of error in the active system, the information is

sent to the standby system, whereafter output data in the active system is

disabled and switched to that of the standby system as also that D1 discloses

primary/secondary CPU switchover process in another condition, where

secondary CPU does not consecutively confirm arrivals of snooping request

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 30 of 34

related frames to be sent from the primary CPU if in a normal state, D1

teaches that when error is detected by a system, failure is determined and

only the standby system performs operational control and those skilled in the

art will readily recognise that the system action is halted, when there is a

system failure. In respect of D2, it is observed that the prior art discloses

dual system, where on-board controller which generates position

information is transmitted to the ground control device via a standby dual

system and the input of the received data from the ground device and the

train control device on the input are performed via a parallel dual system and

hence, when a main system fails, location information goes to the slave

system and from there to the ground control device by switching the

connection with and on-train radio set from the main system to the slave

system by a switching mechanism. Therefore, as per the Respondent the

claimed invention is obvious to a person skilled in the art in light of D1 and

D2 and common general knowledge.

25. Plain reading of the impugned order fortifies the stand of the learned

counsel for the Appellant that the important inventive features brought forth

are not even dealt with in the impugned order and the order is completely

coloured by the perception of the Respondent that D1 and D2 make the

claimed invention obvious to the person skilled in the art. Principles for

determining whether a claimed invention lacks inventive step under Section

2(1)(ja) of 1970 Act are settled. In Agriboard International LLC v. Deputy

Controller of Patents and Designs, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 940, this Court

held that Controller has to analyse as to what is the existing knowledge and

how person skilled in the art would move from the existing knowledge to the

subject invention. In Avery Dennison (supra), this Court emphasized the

could-would approach, wherein the question that is required to be raised is

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 31 of 34

whether there is any teaching in the prior art as a whole that ‘would’ and not

simply ‘could’ have prompted a person skilled in the art with the knowledge

of the objective technical problem to either modify or adapt the closest prior

art to arrive at the subject matter of the claims. It is also settled that motive

of the skilled person is a relevant consideration. The notional skilled person

is not assumed to undertake technical trials for the sake of doing so but

rather because he or she has some end in mind. It is not sufficient that a

skilled person could undertake a particular trial and the question is whether

in the circumstances he would be motivated to do so and absence of motive

to take the inventive step will make it difficult to conclude that the invention

is obvious.

26. Appellant has consistently asserted that there are material and crucial

differences between D1 and D2 and the claimed invention as also that the

mere fact that the prior arts fall within the broad domain of a redundant

control device does not negate the inventive step and as rightly pointed out,

simplicity does not defeat patentability and inventive step must be judge

without hindsight. It is highlighted that claimed invention is not limited to

generic duplexing or mere CPU failure and instead the claims are specific

system architecture and method that places the active and standby

controllers in physically separated train cars, linked only by simple serial

lines and utilizes a dedicated sync line to maintain perfect phase-aligned

control cycles across those separated controllers, enabling instant switchover

without the handshake or mirror memory compare required by conventional

designs like D1. Appellant seriously contests Respondent’s position that

faster switchover is an expected result of known duplex systems since in the

present system synchronization via the dedicated sync line allows standby

system to takeover immediately in the next cycle without waiting for

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 32 of 34

acknowledgments, whereas in D1 switchover relies on multi-step handshake

protocol.

27. From the arguments of the Appellant, it is apparent that it also

contests Respondent’s findings that cost effectiveness is an expected

outcome of any redundant system. It is urged that claimed invention reduces

cost specifically by eliminating mirror-memory hardware and relay-based

switch-over circuits entirely, using only two serial lines between cars instead

of a complex parallel bus or high-bandwidth memory interface supporting

symmetric coordination so that either side can be active or standby without

preconfigured master/slave roles. Appellant has also emphasized that in D1

the secondary CPU is inactive until a switchover is triggered and it relies on

frame monitoring of fault reports while in the subject invention the standby

system is always active, fully synchronized and takes over immediately in

the next cycle. The switchover in D1 also involves changing communication

path to the I/O device from CPU1 to CPU2, which then starts sending

control data to the I/O device in place of CPU1, whereas in subject invention

a sync line is used to ensure that both systems operate in phase

synchronization, with both generating control data continuously. In D1 once

CPU1 is confirmed faulty and CPU2 takes over, CPU1 that has been

detected to be currently in trouble will not be switched over to the primary,

whereas in the claimed invention there is a recoverable switchover after the

standby output is used and if the original active system detects no error, it

resumes output and regains control. Thus, the subject invention’s bi-

directional and reversible switchover is not taught or suggested by D1’s

permanent, one-way fail over structure. Similar differences as noted above,

have been highlighted qua D2 but there is no consideration, least of all even

a mention in the impugned order. No doubt it is Respondent’s prerogative

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 33 of 34

and expertise to decide whether a claimed invention is involves an inventive

step, but the decision must be reasoned and based on material facts and

scientific reasoning and moreover, Respondent is under an obligation to

consider all relevant points raised by an applicant, analyse it and then pass

an order. Learned counsel for the Appellant rightly urged that Respondent

has failed to consider the detailed submissions made in response to the FER

and post-hearing written submissions as also the fact that claims were

amended to address the objections raised in the FER and hearing notice.

Appellant brought forth that the amended set of claims 1-5 involve inventive

step and are compliant with Section 2(1)(ja) of 1970 Act and gave detailed

analysis in the written submission why reliance on prior arts D1 and D2 was

incorrect, but Respondent continued to rely on the objections raised and did

not consider the differences brought out. Non-consideration of the written

submissions has been held to be a reason good enough for remand of the

matter to the Controller in Boehringer Ingelheim (supra). For all the

aforesaid reasons, in my view, this is a fit case for remand to the Respondent

for fresh consideration.

28. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 is quashed and set

aside. Respondent shall consider the Indian Patent Application

No.201617036284 afresh, taking into consideration the submissions of the

Appellant made in response to the FER as also in the post-hearing written

submissions and this appeal. Determination of inventive step shall be carried

out in accordance with the law on the subject as detailed in the judgements

referred to above on the subject. Decision will be taken within a period of

four months from today after granting opportunity of hearing to the

Appellant.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 84/2024 Page 34 of 34

29. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the

merits of the case.

30. Appeal stands partially allowed and disposed of.

JYOTI SINGH, J.

MAY 29 , 2026/YA