Wirtgen Gmbh vs. Controller General Of Patents, Designs And Trademarks And Ors

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: 20.11.2025
Date of Decision: 23.03.2026
Judgment uploaded on: As per digital signature

+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022

WIRTGEN GMBH .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Rohit Rangi, Mr. Vineet Rohilla,
Mr. Debashish Banerjee, Mr. Pankaj
Soni & Mr. Ankush Verma, Advs.

versus

CONTROLLER GENERAL OF PATENTS, DESIGNS AND
TRADEMARKS AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.
Om Ram, Mr. Arnav Mittal and Mr.
Mayank Sansanwal, Advs.
%
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
J U D G M E N T

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J:

1. This is an appeal under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970 (‘the
Patents Act’), challenging the order dated 25.11.2019 (‘impugned order’)
passed by the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs/Respondent No. 2
in Indian Patent Application number 2874/DEL/2010 filed on 03.12.2010
(‘Subject Patent Application’) for the invention titled ‘BIT HOLDER AND
BASE PART FOR RECEIVING A BIT HOLDER’.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 1 of 21





FACTUAL MATRIX
2. Brief facts necessary for deciding the present appeal are set out
below:
3. The Appellant/Wirtgen GMBH filed the Subject Patent Application
on 03.12.2010 as a convention application claiming priority from the
German Patent Application No. 10 2009 059.3-24 dated 17.12.2009. The
bibliographic details of the application are given below:

4. The FER was issued on 13.07.2017 after a period of six and a half
years. The FER listed various objections raised by Respondent No. 2,
wherein the primary objections raised were pertaining to:
i. Claims are lacking inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the
Patents Act and
ii. Claims do not sufficiently define the scope of the present
invention under Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act.
5. The Appellant thereafter filed a detailed response complying with all
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 2 of 21





the requirements raised in the FER on 05.01.2018. Vide the said response,
the Appellant clarified the following:
i. Lack of Inventive Step: The prior art documents fail to disclose
‘a bit holder including a base part for receiving the said bit holder this
enables long-lasting and rigid bracing of the bit holder with respect to
the base part under high stress. The invention discloses a bit holder in
which the supporting and bearing surfaces are arranged at an angle to
each other. The longitudinal axis of the bit receptacle and the insertion
projection form an obtuse angle, creating a supporting region that helps
dissipate transverse loads during tool use.
ii. Unity of Inventions: the Claim 1 is directed towards a bit
holder, whereas Claim 15 recites a base part for receiving the said bit
holder and both sets of claims are linked with each other with a
common feature of ‘bit holder’. Claim 20 describes the direction of the
supporting surfaces.
iii. Clarity and Conciseness, Definitiveness and other
requirements: the claims were amended to meet the requirements and
the dependency clause ‘according to’ appearing in the sub claim had
been replaced with ‘as claimed in claim’.
6. Thereafter, a hearing notice was issued on 30.08.2019 for the official
hearing of the Subject Patent Application on 18.09.2019. Certain objections
were raised by Respondent No. 2 in the said hearing notice. The official
deadline to file written submissions was 03.10.2019; however, pursuant to a
telephonic discussion with Respondent No. 2, the Appellant filed a petition
under Rule 138 along with the official fee on 30.09.2019, seeking an
extension of the official deadline for filing the written submission by one (1)
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 3 of 21





month. The fresh deadline was extended to 03.11.2019. In view of the
extension, the Appellant filed a detailed written submission in response to
the objections raised in the hearing notice on 01.11.2019.
7. Respondent No. 2 issued the impugned order on 25.11.2019, which
was communicated to the Appellant on 27.11.2019. The Subject Patent
Application was rejected on the ground that Claims 1 to 22 lack inventive
step in view of prior art documents D1-D4 under Section 2(1)(ja) of the
Patents Act, and that the claims are not definite and fail to clearly define the
scope of the invention, contrary to Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act.
SUBMISSIONS BY THE PARTIES
Submissions by the Appellant
8. Mr. Rohit Rangi, learned counsel for the Appellant, states that the
present invention relates to a bit holder and a corresponding base part in
which said bit holder can be installed. The bit holder and the base part are
mounted on a milling drum of a machine used for removing road surfaces or
surface mining.
9. He states that Respondent No. 2 has rejected the subject application
for lack of inventive step in view of documents D1-D4. It is pertinent to
mention that the novelty and inventive step of the present invention lie in the
alignment and orientation of the support surfaces of the bit holder and the
base part. Therefore, Respondent No. 2 has clearly acknowledged that D1-
D3 does not provide any disclosure regarding the novel and inventive
features of the present invention.
10. He states that it is trite law that in order to lack novelty of a claim, all
the features recited in the claim should be present in the cited document.
Further, the prior publication should contain a clear description and provide
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 4 of 21





clear instructions to do or carry out the same, which would infringe the
claim in question. Therefore, the claimed invention is clearly distinguishable
and not anticipated in view of D4.
11. He states that Respondent No. 2 has only made general statements
about the disclosure of D4. Neither any analysis nor any mapping of features
has been conducted. Respondent No. 2 has merely reproduced a part of the
abstract of D4 in the Impugned Order and has not compared any feature
recited in the claims of the subject application with the disclosure of D4,
which was required for establishing lack of novelty.
12. He states that Respondent No. 2 has also not explained how and
which teachings of D1-D3, in combination with the features disclosed in D4,
render the present invention obvious. Any combination of D1-D4 cannot
render the present invention obvious since they fail to disclose or suggest the
supporting segment comprising two (2) supporting surfaces arranged at an
angle to one another, and the longitudinal centre axis of the bit receptacle
and the longitudinal axis (L) of the insertion projection enclosing an obtuse
angle. In view thereof, the refusal of the Subject Patent Application under
Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act is not tenable.
13. He states that Respondent No. 2 has erroneously and arbitrarily
refused the subject application under Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act on
the ground that the claims are not definitive. Several objections, including
those relating to “transverse central plane”, “extend locally”, “in front of the
longitudinal axis”, and “at least locally with an offset”, were not even raised
in the FER or the hearing notice. The objection regarding multiple
dependent claims is also untenable as neither the Patents Act nor the Manual
of Patent Office Practice and Procedure prohibit such dependency, and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 5 of 21





scope of the invention remains clear when read with the independent claims.
Further, the alleged overlap between Claims 9 and 10 is incorrect since both
claims relate to different embodiments concerning the orientation of the
bearing surfaces. Accordingly, the claims are clear, definite, and fully
supported by the specification and drawings. The refusal of the subject
application under Section 10(4)(c) is, therefore, unsustainable and liable to
be set aside.
Submissions by the Respondents
14. Ms. Nidhi Raman, learned counsel for the Respondents, states that
Respondent No. 2’s statement has been taken out of context. Respondent
No. 2’s analysis did not stop at D1-D3. It was a multi-step argument that
must be read in its entirety. The argument is not that D1-D3 alone make the
invention obvious, but that they establish the background knowledge
available to a person skilled in the art. The lack of inventive step arises when
the teachings of D4 are combined with this background knowledge.
15. She states that the purpose of citing D1, D2 and D3 was to establish
that the general concept of a two-part system, i.e. a base part attached to a
machine and a removable holder for a tool, was common knowledge in the
field.
16. She states that the prior arts teach the following:
i. D1 explicitly teaches a holder with a base part for holding a
tool.
ii. D2 explicitly discloses a tool combination having a base part
and a bit holder.
iii. D3 explicitly discloses a cutting element with a base element
and a chisel holder.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 6 of 21





17. She states that the very next part of Respondent No. 2’s analysis
introduces the crucial teaching from D4. Respondent No. 2 found that D4
teaches a chisel holder and a base part where a bearing surface (profiles 27,
28.1) is supported on a supporting surface (profile 12-13) of the base part,
and the base part comprises a shoulder connected to the supporting surface.
This is precisely the concept of using multiple facets and dedicated
supporting surfaces that was missing from D1-D3.
18. She states that a person skilled in the art, starting with the well-known
holder systems of D1-D3 and seeking to improve them, would naturally look
to other solutions in the field. Upon finding D4, which explicitly teaches the
use of multi-faceted support surfaces to improve durability and wear
resistance, it would be obvious to apply that teaching to the systems in D1-
D3. D4 teaches that a simple flat surface is insufficient and that adding
angled geometry improves durability.
19. She states that an independent claim must be clear and define the
invention on its own terms, not by relying on external clarification from the
description or other claims to resolve its vagueness. The language of Claim
1 is what defines the legal boundary, and as it stands, it fails to specify
which of the possible obtuse angles is being claimed, rendering the scope of
the monopoly sought indefinite.
20. She states that it is the case of the Appellant that the Respondent No.
2 has introduced new terms in the impugned order. However, Respondent
No. 2 has already mentioned the claims in the hearing notice within which
these terms fall, and thus have not been introduced for the first time.



Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 7 of 21





ANALYSIS

21. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material on record.
22. The Subject Patent Application covers an invention that relates to a
bit holder and a corresponding base part for cutting tools used in milling or
mining machines, wherein angled supporting and bearing surfaces and an
obtuse angle between the bit receptacle axis and insertion projection axis
provide improved load distribution, rigid bracing, and secure mounting
under high operational stresses.
23. This Subject Patent Application has been refused by the Respondent
No.2 under Section 10(4)(c) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The relevant
parts of the impugned order are as follows:
“ Scope of Invention

4. I have carefully considered the reply of the applicant and observe
following part of the claims being not in accordance with section 10 of the
Act:
i. Axes, L & M as per figure 6 intersect each other at an angle. The
form both acute and obtuse angle. The claim is however specific on
obtuse angle but does not refer properly.

ii. “transverse central plane” in claim 1, 12 is not defined.

iii. “at least locally in front of” in claim 3 is vague. Also directions of
the said surfaces and ‘v’ are not same as in figure 6.

iv. Claims 3-22 are multiple dependent and as such scope of the
invention can not be definitive under section 10 (4) (c) of the Patents
Act. For ex. : subject matter in claim 7 talks of the feature of
supporting surfaces 29. Said claim is dependent on claims 1-6.
Subject matters in claims 4-6 are not relating to supporting surface
but bearing surface or pressure surface etc.

v. Subject matter in claim 14 claims the angle between ‘L’ and ‘M’.
Said claim is dependent on all preceding claims, where ‘L’ and ‘M’
are not even referred to. In a similar manner it is difficult to identify
the scope of the claims.

vi. “at least locally with an offset” in claim 5 is vague.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 8 of 21





vii. “supporting surfaces (29) face toward the free end” in claim 7 is
vague in meaning.


viii. “extend locally” in claim 9 is vague.

ix. Scope of subject matter in claim 10 overlaps with claim 9.

x. “in front of the longitudinal axis” in claim 18 is vague. “at least
locally with an offset” in claim 19 is vague.


B. Technical Analysis (with respect to the priori arts cited for Novelty
and Inventive Step)

5. After duly considering the reply of the applicant in written submissions
(post FER and hearing), I do not find it persuasive to consider the instant
patent application novel and inventive for the reason as below:

DE102005017760: D1 explicitly teaches of a holder with a base part for
holding a tool. Said holder being held in the box (base part) with the help of
a screw.

EP1761682: D2 explicitly discloses a tool combination having a base part
and a bit holder.

DE4322401:D3 explicitly discloses a Cutting element with a base element
and chisel holder.

Therefore, D1-D3 explicitly teaches a tool combination of base part and a
holder. Above documents however fail to disclose as if the base or older part
is made in multiple facets and having supporting surfaces.

CN101091037: D4 teaches that the chisel holder and a base part. A bearing
surface is supported on a supporting surface of the base part, and the base
part comprises a shoulder which is connected to the supporting surface. A
replacement chamber is formed between the shoulder and a facing end
surface of the chisel holder.

Therefore, considering the disclosure in D4, I am of the opinion that D4
alone would be able to destroy the novelty of the instant application for
patent. Also, instant application for patent discloses mechanically equivalent
components / parts of tool / features of the tool disclosed in D4. Therefore, a
person skilled in the art would be able to combine the teaching of D4 in D1-
D3 and reach to the instant invention to provide various supports as in
instant application for patent.

C. Decision
In view of my observations in the paragraphs 5 & 6,

i. I consider the subject matter in set of claims 1-22 submitted is not
inventive under section 2 (1) (ja) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 9 of 21





ii. The drafted claims are not in compliance of the section 10 (4) (c) of
the Patents Act, 1970 for being not definitive in defining scope of the
claims.
I, therefore, refuse the application for grant of patent under section 15 of the
Patents Act, 1970.”
[Emphasis supplied]

24. From the above extracted paragraphs made by Respondent No. 2 in
the impugned order, it is clear that the Subject Patent Application has been
refused since the claims of the Subject Patent Application do not define the
scope of the invention as per the requirement under Section 10(4)(c) of the
Patents Act. Also, the subject matter claimed in the Subject Patent
Application does not fulfil the inventive step requirement under Section
2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. In order to determine that the said requirements
have been fulfilled by the Subject Patent Application, this Court deems it
appropriate to assess the aforesaid provisions in the facts of the present case.
Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act
25. This Court shall first examine the objection raised by Respondent No.
2 in the impugned order under Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act. During
hearing, as recorded in the written submissions dated 20.07.2023 which was
filed before this Court, the Appellant had raised serious concerns over the
impugned order over violation of the principles of natural justice since some
of the specific terms which Respondent No. 2 had determined in the
impugned order to be not fulfilling the requirement under Section 10(4)(c)
of the Patents Act was never raised before in the hearing notice or the FER.
Therefore, the Appellant had not received any opportunity to address the
objection before Respondent No. 2. However, the counsel representing
Respondent No.2 has argued that even though specific terms were not
referred to in the hearing notice, a reference to the claims that contain those
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 10 of 21





words was already there in the hearing notice.
26. The objection raised by Respondent No. 2 in FER under Section
10(4)(c) is as follows:
“ SCOPE:
(xvi) Claim(s) does/do not define the scope of invention for which the
protection is claimed for the following
reasons:

Not Applicable

CLARITY AND CONCISENESS:
(xvii) Claim(s) 1,4,5,7,10,15,17 and 19 are not clearly worded in respect
of:

Claims not clearly worded and in claim 1,4,5,7,10,15,17 and 19 the word
"comprises/comprising" should be replaced with word "consisting
of".

DEFINITIVENESS:
(xviii) Claim(s) 2-14 and 16-20 do not sufficiently define the invention
for the reasons as follows:

The word “according to” in the claims 2-14 and 16-20 is not
definitive; it requires amendment by replacing word “as claimed in
claim”.”
[Emphasis supplied]

27. The objection raised by Respondent No. 2 in the hearing notice dated
30.08.2019 under Section 10(4)(c) is as follows:
“1. Subject matter in claims fails to define the scope of the invention
under section 10 (4) (c) of the Patents Act, 1970 :

1. Direction 11 in figure 1 and 2 seem different.

2. Holding projection in claims should be replaced with “holder” or
“holding part”, since same is part of the insertion projection, which
seem to be detachable and holding part seem not to be detachable.

3. “at least locally” in claim 2 is vague .

Further supporting surfaces (29) does not seen to be in ‘V’ (which
seems to be perpendicular to direction 11 in figure 1) direction in any
of the figure but making some angle (<90 degree) to said direction.
“Substantially oppositely to the tool feed direction” in claim 3 is
vague. As per figure 5, surfaces 21.5 seem to be at an angle to feed
direction ‘v’ but not apparently opposite to the said direction.

4. “at least locally with an offset” in claim 4 is vague.

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 11 of 21





5. “pressure surface” , “being at an angle” in claim 5.

6. “ face toward the free end of the insertion projection (21) ” in claim
6.
7. “consisting of a region that is cantilevered out beyond the
insertion projection (21)”, “on the cantilevered region” in claim 7

8. “wherein the supporting surface (29) or supporting surfaces (29)
and the bearing surface (21.5) or bearing surfaces (21.5)
respectively form slide guides ” in claim 10. No technical meaning
in claim 10 can be deduced.

9. A. Subject matter in 11 in respect of bearing surface(s) and
supporting surface(s) are redundant with respect to claims 1-10. Said
claims depicts out the way these surfaces are extended/arranged in
the claimed invention. Therefore, these surfaces act as an antecedent
basis to the bit holder (20).

In said claim 11 the said surfaces are presented in a way in which
they are arranged to bit holder of the invention, where no technical
change in the position / arrangement of said surfaces is apparent.

B. In a similar manner supporting surface 29 is presented to be
parallel to the longitudinal center axis ‘M’ in claim 12. It is noted that
the earlier claims 1-11 where the position / arrangement of these
surfaces were disclosed were vague. Therefore, the positioning of
supporting surface 29 should be discloses taking reference of ‘M’
only. Any other claim is not able to bring clarity to the position of
surface 29 which otherwise intend to reveal or seek protection of
same position/arrangement.

C. Claims 2,4,8,10,11, 14 (without prejudice to any other claims)
disclose the position / arrangement of bearing surface(s) and
supporting surface(s). These claims are vague in respect to drafting
and fail to define the scope of the invention. The proper positioning
of these surfaces are required to be presented taking reference of ‘L’
and ‘M’. Further relation of these axes with ‘11’, ‘V’ may be added in
same claim in order to bring clarity to the scope of the invention.

10. The multiple dependencies of the dependent claims 3-12 & 14, 17-19
(as claims X or Y, Claims X to Y, any of the preceding claim, etc.)
makes it difficult to correlate the disclosed technical feature of said
claims with other dependent / independent claims. The scope of said
claims is not definite under section 10 (4) (c) of the Patents Act,
1970.”
[Emphasis supplied]

28. It is a settled principle of law that the examination process under the
Patents Act is required to conform to the principles of natural justice,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 12 of 21





particularly the rule of audi alteram partem , which mandates that an
applicant must be afforded a fair opportunity to meet the objections that may
ultimately form the basis of refusal of the application. The Supreme Court in
Assistant Commissioner. Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and
1
Brothers has held as follows:
“10. The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its
resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all concerned in
the justice administration system. Despite heavy quantum of cases in
Courts, in our view, it would neither be permissible nor possible to state
as a principle of law, that while exercising power of judicial review on
administrative action and more particularly judgment of courts in appeal
before the higher Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed
with. The doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials.
Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed or whose
rights are likely to be affected adversely must be granted an opportunity
of being heard. Secondly, the concerned authority should provide a fair
and transparent procedure and lastly, the authority concerned must apply
its mind and dispose of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This
has been uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad.”

[Emphasis supplied]
29. The scheme of the Patents Act contemplates that objections are first
communicated through the FER as required under Section 12 of the Patents
Act, and where necessary, clarified through a hearing notice, thereby
enabling the applicant to address the concerns of the controller through
written submissions or amendments as prescribed under Section 14 of the
Patents Act.
30. In the present case, an analysis of the FER and hearing notice in the
context of the impugned order shows that some objections under Section
10(4) were raised for the first time in the impugned order. Consequently, the
applicant was not put on notice that these aspects would form the basis of

1
(2010) 4 SCC 785
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 13 of 21





the final decision. The objections which appeared for the first time in the
impugned order are as follows:
i. “at least locally with an offset" in claim 19 is vague.
ii. “in front of the longitudinal axis" in claim 18 is vague.”
iii. “Scope of the subject matter of claim 10 overlaps with claim 9.”
iv. "extend locally" in claim 9 is vague

v. "transverse central plane" in claims 1, 12 is not defined.
31. The Appellant, during the course of the hearing, has endeavoured to
satisfy this Court on all of these specific terms, which are very well defined
and have been sufficiently backed by the drawings and detailed description
of the Complete Specification of the Subject Patent Application.
32. The submission made by the Appellant regarding these terms under
Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents Act is as follows:

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 14 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 15 of 21

33. This Court is of the view that the technical objections, particularly
those relating to the scope of claims under Section 10(4)(c) of the Patents
Act, must be clearly communicated to the applicant at the examination stage.
If Respondent No. 2 introduces new grounds for refusal for the first time in
the final order, the applicant is effectively deprived of an opportunity to
clarify the claims, amend the specification, or address Respondent No. 2’s
concerns through submissions. Such a course of action runs contrary to the
fundamental requirement of fairness and transparency embedded in quasi-
judicial decision-making.
34. It is also pertinent to note that patent examination is inherently an
interactive process, where deficiencies identified during prosecution are
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 16 of 21





ordinarily cured through amendments or clarifications. When objections are
raised for the first time in the impugned order without prior notice, the
applicant is denied the procedural opportunity that the statute guarantees.
35. In the present matter, while some objections relating to clarity of
claim language had indeed been mentioned in the FER and the hearing
notice, the impugned order proceeds to introduce additional technical
objections and interpretative concerns that were not previously
communicated to the applicant. These newly introduced grounds appear to
have materially influenced the Respondent’s conclusion that the claims fail
to define the scope of the invention. The reliance on such uncommunicated
objections renders the decision procedurally infirm.
36. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the objection under Section
10(4)(c) of the Patents Act requires fresh analysis considering the
submissions of the Appellant. This Court also does not think it appropriate
to interfere with the compliance with the terms that were already raised in
the hearing notice. However, the argument of Respondent No. 2 that the
Appellant shall not rely on the description or drawings for claim
interpretation does not stand merit. It is now a settled legal principle, as a
Coordinate Bench of this Court and this Court has recently noted in AGFA
2
NV v. Controller of Patents & Designs , and in Resham Priyadarshini v.
3
Controller of Patents & Designs and also as is evident from the reading of
Sections 10(4)(c) and 10(5) of the Patents Act, that the claims must be fairly
based on the disclosure made in the specification. Hence, the claims, or any
ambiguous terms in the claims, are to be read with the specification.

2
2023 SCC OnLine Del 3493
3
2025 SCC OnLine Del 9655
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 17 of 21





Therefore, Respondent No. 2 shall give a fresh opportunity to the Appellant
to respond to the objections to the satisfaction of Respondent No. 2 and
thereafter reconsider the claims in light of the Complete Specification and
the submissions of the Appellant.
Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act
37. Now, this Court shall examine the objection of Respondent No. 2 that
the Subject Patent Application does not have an inventive step as per
Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.
38. The Court has considered the reasoning recorded by Respondent No.
2 in the impugned order, in relation to the findings on inventive step based
on prior art documents DE102005017760 (D1), EP1761682 (D2),
DE4322401 (D3), and CN101091037 (D4). Respondent No. 2 has
concluded that the claims of the Subject Patent Application lack inventive
step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act when the teachings of D4 are
combined with those of D1-D3.
39. It is pertinent to note that the Subject Patent Application has two (2)
independent claims, Claims 1 and 16. Claim 1 relates to a bit holder
comprising an insertion projection and a holding projection, wherein the
supporting segment includes two supporting surfaces arranged at an angle to
one another, and further wherein the longitudinal centre axis of the bit
receptacle and the longitudinal axis of the insertion projection enclose an
obtuse angle. The claim further specifies that the supporting surfaces are
arranged on both sides of a transverse central plane extending in the tool
feed direction.
Independent Claim 16 relates to a base part configured to receive the
bit holder, wherein the base part includes supporting projections with prism-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 18 of 21





shaped supporting surfaces arranged at an angle to one another, and wherein
these surfaces also form an obtuse angular relationship with the longitudinal
axis of the insertion receptacle.
40. Thus, the claims of the Complete Specification of the Subject Patent
Application reveal that the invention lies in a specific geometric and
structural arrangement of supporting and bearing surfaces between the bit
holder and the base part, intended to create a stable support and guided
engagement between the two (2) components.
41. According to the Respondent No. 2’s reasoning in the impugned
order, a person skilled in the art would combine the teachings of D4 with
D1-D3 to arrive at the claimed invention.
42. However, the impugned order does not follow the five-step test
prescribed by the Division Bench of this Court in F. Hoffmann-La Roche
4
Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. , as reaffirmed by another Division Bench of this Court
5
in Tapas Chatterjee v. Controller of Patents & Designs .
43. Patent law requires that the conclusion of lack of inventive step as
required under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act is to be supported by a
reasoned analysis demonstrating why the Person Skilled in the art would
have arrived at the claimed invention without inventive effort. The
impugned order merely states that such a combination would be possible,
without explaining why the skilled person would be led to modify the
structures disclosed in D1-D3 in light of D4 to produce the particular
angular and symmetric supporting surface arrangement claimed in the
present invention.

4
2015 SCC OnLine Del 13619
5
2025 SCC OnLine Del 6369
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 19 of 21





The conclusions recorded therein with respect to inventive step are
not supported by a proper feature-wise analysis of the claims vis-à-vis the
cited prior art, nor do they disclose a reasoned basis explaining how a person
skilled in the art would arrive at the claimed invention by combining the
teachings of the cited documents.
44. In the absence of such reasoning, the finding of a lack of inventive
step cannot be said to satisfy the analytical threshold ordinarily required in
patent examination.
45. In light of the above analysis, the Court finds that the impugned order
suffers from both analytical and procedural deficiencies and cannot be
sustained in law.
46. Therefore, the impugned order does not stand merit and is liable to be
set aside. The matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 2 for a de novo
consideration in accordance with the law, after affording the applicant an
adequate opportunity to address the objections under Sections 10(4)(c) and
2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.
47. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any binding opinion or
view on the issues dealt herein. No observation made in this judgment is to
be understood as expressing any view in that regard, as would bind the
adjudicating authority.
48. The Controller would afford a fresh opportunity of hearing the
Appellant before deciding the Subject Patent Application after giving a
hearing notice to the Appellant. If any new material comes to the knowledge
of the Respondent, the same would be put to the Appellant in the hearing
notice so that the Appellant has an opportunity to deal with the same.
49. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the following directions are
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 20 of 21





passed:
i) The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remanded
back to the Patent Office for a fresh consideration of the objections
under Sections 10(4)(c) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act.
ii) A fresh hearing may be issued for the Appellant, demarking all
the objections, including those which were freshly mentioned in the
impugned order.
iii) The applicant shall have the liberty to file fresh written
submissions along with an amended set of claims, if required.
iv) The Patent Office shall endeavour to decide the subject
application in an expeditious manner, preferably within four (4) months
from today.
50. The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
51. Pending application stands disposed of.
52. The Registry is directed to supply a copy of the present order to the
office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks of India
on the e-mail- llc-ipo@gov.in .


MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MARCH 23, 2026/aa/fv



Signature Not Verified
Signed By:MOHIT
Signing
Date:25.03.2026 18:20
C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 306/2022 Page 21 of 21