While asserting that the manufacturing parameters detailed in the examples of the complete specification are indispensable for the proper assessment of the inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, the Delhi High Court quashed the order passed by the Patents Controller and directed him to take into account the auxiliary claims, before passing a reasoned order based on a comprehensive evaluation. At the same time, the Court directed that the matter shall be decided by a different Controller than the one who originally passed the Impugned Order, and conclude the matter within six months from the date of the court’s directive.
The Court reiterated that the pharmaceutical guidelines themselves illustrate that if a combination of two prior art documents fails to provide the result as claimed in an invention in question, then the teaching of prior art documents is considered to be teaching away. Reference was made to the decision in the case of Pharmacyclics, LLC vs. Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications [2020 SCC OnLine IPAB 37].
Finding that the Independent Claim of the Subject Application clarifies that the invention focuses on the homogeneous distribution of pores across the yarn’s radial cross-section rather than on the fibres themselves, and the essence of the Appellant’s claimed invention lies in achieving an even distribution of pores between the fibres, distinguishing it from the idea of uniformly distributing the fibres themselves, the Court dismissed the Controller’s statement that a homogeneous distribution of fibres along the yarn’s radial cross-section is the ultimate goal in any fibre blending.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia observed that the claims of the present invention lead to a different result. The invention produces a yarn where both PVA and non-PVA base fibres are distributed evenly across the yarn’s radial cross-section. By creating a yarn with multiple pores that are uniformly spread throughout this cross-section, the claimed invention achieves a yarn structure that is neither taught nor accomplished by any of the prior art documents.
However, the Bench cautioned that in rejecting the Subject Application on grounds of lacking inventive step, the Patent Controller should have clearly explained how documents make the claimed invention obvious, citing specific parts of those documents. The Bench found that the Controller does not explain how the cited references provide any guidance or teaching that would lead to selecting the weight of the water-soluble fibres.
From the perusal of the prior art documents, the Bench noted that the claimed invention focuses on “air-rich fabric” and “air-rich yarns” that contain pores throughout their cross-section, and also outlines a method for manufacturing these air-rich fabric yarns. The key feature of this fabric is its increased thickness, which helps retain body heat by preventing it from passing easily through the material, thereby keeping the body warm.
Emphasising that a challenge noted in the prior art is the natural tendency of PVA (polyvinyl alcohol) to migrate outward during the manufacturing process, which causes difficulties, the Bench found that the invention addresses this issue by ensuring that the yarn contains pores that are evenly, or homogeneously, spread throughout the cross-section. This uniform distribution of pores is critical to achieving the desired properties of the air-rich fabric.
Looking at the summary of the specification, the Bench noted that the objective of the invention is to develop a method for manufacturing fabrics that are highly wettable, dry quickly, absorb moisture rapidly, and have increased thickness. Specifically, it uses a modified technique where water-soluble fibre slivers are blended together with base material fibre slivers on the draw frame of the spinning system. This method results in pores being formed throughout the surface of the final yarn, creating a porous yarn structure that is maintained in the finished fabric.
Thus, the Bench pointed out that when the Controller states that the uniform distribution of pores throughout the yarn’s cross-section is due to the even distribution of water-soluble PVA fibres within the base fibres, it indicates that the Controller acknowledges such uniform distribution of pores, and this acknowledgement contradicts the conclusion reached by the Controller regarding the distribution of pores in the yarn cross-section.
The Bench negated the Controller’s decision that no special measures were taken to ensure a uniform radial distribution of fibres in the yarn cross-section, pointing out that the Controller failed to consider the exemplary manufacturing parameters presented by the Appellant, which demonstrate how the yarn or fabric was produced following the methods outlined in the claimed invention.
Briefly, the appellant, a part of the Trident Group, is a diversified business group known for manufacturing yarn, bath linen, bed linen, and paper chemicals. In 2010, the appellant filed a patent application titled “Air Rich Yarn and Fabric and its Method of Manufacturing”. When the patent office issued the First Examination Report (FER), the appellant sent a detailed reply in December 2018. Not satisfied, the patent office issued a second hearing notice in October 2020, which was complied with by submitting additional written arguments. However, the patent office refused the appellant’s patent application.
Appearances:
Advocates Nitin Masilamani, Amritanshu Jha and Amit Singh, for the Appellant
Advocates Rupali Bandhopadhya, Abhijeet Kumar and A. Gupta, for the Respondent
