The Madras High Court has set aside the decision of the Patent Office rejecting the patent application on grounds that the claimed invention was obvious and does not satisfy the requirements of Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970 relating to ‘inventive step’.
The Patent Office’s contention that the claimed patent (use of polyvinyl alcohol film (PVA film) of particular specifications in plant cultivation) was obvious considering the prior art patent (water-absorbing laminate and production process thereof), was thus rejected by the Court.
Extracting the specifications of the two inventions, the High Court in Kuraray Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Controller of Patents & Designs [Judgement dated 29 November 2023] held that the invention disclosed in prior art document was intended to resolve a different problem.
Also, noting that the said prior art taught the use of a laminate comprising of a PVA film in combination with a non-woven fabric, the Court was of the view that a person skilled in such prior art would not be motivated to consider the use of a PVA film on a standalone basis for resolving the problem that the claimed invention intended to resolve, i.e., the need for improved nutrient permeability and suppression of root penetration in plant cultivation.
It may be noted that the Court also upheld the appellants view that prior art document does not teach, motivate, or suggest the claimed invention and, in fact, teaches away to the extent that it proposes the use of a laminate.
