Combining more than five installation bodies via common bar elements lacks inventiveness where prior art discloses mechanical equivalents and similar configurations.

The Appellant, Sulzer Mixpac AG, filed Application 1329/DEL/2012 for a patent titled "Static Mixer," an invention used to mix molten polymers

The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (ACPD) rejected the application on March 10, 2021, holding that the "subject invention" lacked novelty and an inventive step under Sections 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970

The ACPD found the invention obvious based on prior art documents D1 to D4, some of which were previous patents held by the Appellant

A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissed the subsequent appeal on April 5, 2024

The Appellant then preferred this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA)

1. Whether a Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge under Section 117A(2) of the Patents Act

2. Whether the subject invention involved an "inventive step" as defined under Section 2(1)(ja) or was obvious to a person skilled in the art in light of prior art D1-D4

The court primarily applied Section 2(1)(j) and Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, 1970, which define "invention" and "inventive step" as features involving technical advance or economic significance that make an invention non-obvious to a person skilled in the art

Regarding maintainability, the court relied on the precedent Promoshirt SM SA v. Armasuisse, which held that the bar under Section 100A of the CPC does not apply to appeals from authorities that are not "Civil Courts," such as Patent Controllers

On the merits of obviousness, the court referred to the five-step test established in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Cipla Ltd but clarified these are guiding principles rather than rigid commandments

On maintainability, the Division Bench held that since the ACPD is not a "Civil Court" within the meaning of the CPC, Section 100A does not prohibit a further appeal to the Division Bench

On the merits, the Appellant argued the inventive step was connecting more than five installation bodies via a common bar element

However, the court observed that prior art document D1 (specifically Figure 4 and paragraphs 71, 74, 75) already taught the use of connection elements to increase stiffness and described mixers with up to 12 installation bodies

Similarly, D2 and D3 demonstrated equivalent reinforcement strips

The court found that substituting a "bar" for a "reinforced strip" or extending connectivity to more bodies was a mere modification obvious to a person skilled in the art, especially given that the Appellant was the author of the closest prior art (D1)

(2) The subject invention lacks an inventive step as the features were anticipated by or obvious from prior arts D1–D4

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the Single Judge upholding the ACPD’s rejection was affirmed