A patent cannot be refused on prior art that does not disclose the claimed invention.

Aventose Energy Private Limited applied for a patent for a system and method to operate automobiles with an electric drivetrain, including activation of a safe mode upon detection of vehicle faults.

Although the First Examination Report accepted novelty, the Controller later refused the application, finding the invention lacked novelty and inventive step in view of cited documents D1–D4 and common general knowledge.

The applicant appealed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the adequacy of the Controller’s reasoning and the assessment of the prior art.

1. Whether the Controller adequately reasoned that the claimed invention lacked inventive step in view of cited documents D1–D4.

2. Whether the cited prior art, particularly D2, justified refusal of the patent application for lack of novelty or inventive step.

The appeal was brought under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970.

The refusal relied on Section 2(1)(ja), concerning “inventive step”; the respondent also referred to Section 2(1)(j) in support of its position on patentability.

The Court assessed whether the cited prior art and the Controller’s stated reasoning supported rejection of the claimed invention.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court found that, although the refusal referred to D1–D4, its reasoning did not address D1 and did not explain why D1, D3 and D4 were relevant after D2 had been identified as the closest prior art.

D3 concerned diagnosis during discharge of a power-storage system, while D4 concerned extending an electric vehicle’s range; neither addressed the claimed safe-mode operation in the circumstances described by the Court.

D2 addressed whether vehicle-system status fell within a predetermined safe operating range, whereas the claimed invention involved a different operation, including a user controller module to extend the vehicle’s operating range and avoid stranding the rider.

The Court therefore concluded that the Controller’s analysis did not establish that D2 or the other cited documents justified refusal.

It directed the Controller to grant and approve the patent and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law; there was no order as to costs.