Page 64 - A&A Patents&Design Rewind-2016
P. 64
methods claimed to be inventive as she found 5. A ground of double patenting was also raised
that the Opponents’ allegations on obviousness during the hearing of the two applications. This
were based on an incorrect reading of the prior ground was also dismissed and the Controller
art as well as of the invention. The discussions of held that the inventions claimed in the afore-
the Opponents were also found to be based on mentioned applications are patentably distinct
hindsight. The Controller held that the prior art and do not involve any issue of ever greening
should be read as a whole which the Opponents or double patenting. In the first application
have failed to do. It was further held that it i.e., 2315/DELNP/2007, three specific media
is not enough to say that the documents may conditions are needed in the method of
be combined. There has to be a motivation or production of polypeptides whereas in 2317/
a thread linking of the documents to combine DELNP/2007 specific media characteristics and
features from two or more documents. There their combinations along with certain culture
was no teaching, suggestion or motivation in conditions for the production of TNFR-Ig have
any of the prior art documents either alone or been claimed.
in combination to arrive at the claimed method.
Further, the calculations of cumulative values These four decisions can be accessed at:-
by the Opponents were incorrect and had the http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/decision/2315-
benefit of hindsight. The claims were therefore, DELNP-2007-24687/2315%20DELNP%202007%20
considered to be inventive. Decision%20wrt%20Biocon.pdf ;
http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/decision/2317-
3. The Controller also held that the Applicant DELNP-2007-24677/2317%20DELNP%202007%20
can be his own lexicographer and if there is Decision%20wrt%20Biocon.pdf ;
a definition provided for a given word in the http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/decision/2315-
specification, said word has to be given the DELNP-2007-24687/2315%20DELNP%202007%20
meaning intended by the specification. Decision%20wrt%20Mylan.pdf ;
http://ipindiaservices.gov.in/decision/2317-
4. On the ground of non-compliance of Section DELNP-2007-24677/2317%20DELNP%202007%20
8, the Controller held that there were no Decision%20wrt%20Mylan.pdf
pleadings with regard to Section 8 provided in
the pre-grant representation. Said ground was
dismissed as what has not been pleaded cannot
be argued.
64 | Patents & Design
