Simplicity of invention is no bar to patentability   

The Dispute: The appeal was filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970, challenging the Controller's order dated April 12, 2024, which rejected the appellant’s Indian Patent Application no. 2554/DEL/2013 for an invention titled ‘Vertical Rotary Parking System’. The system is designed to maximize vehicle parking in narrow spaces.

Controller's Rationale (The Impugned Order): The Controller rejected the application primarily for lack of inventive step, arguing that the claimed invention was not an invention under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. The Controller determined that the invention, which modified the appellant's own prior art document (D-5), involved only a "mere workshop modification", achieved by interchanging the male and female coupling elements between the suspension chain and the pull gear. The Controller also refused to allow the appellant to amend the specifications to incorporate the prior art D-5.

High Court's Decision and Rationale: The High Court set aside the Controller’s order and remanded the matter for de novo consideration. The court found that the Controller’s rejection was unjustified based on several key findings:

1. Inventive Step and Simplicity: The finding of "obviousness" lacked foundation, as the court emphasized that simplicity is no bar to patentability and even simple changes can introduce substantive differences. The appellant provided technical evidence showing that the reconfiguration resulted in measurable technical advancements over the old design (D-5), including significantly reduced displacement (from 2.694mm to 0.951mm) and an increased Factor of Safety (from 0.5 to 1.3) under a 3000Kg load, indicating enhanced safety and strength.

2. Common General Knowledge: The Controller’s reliance on "common general knowledge" to deem the invention obvious was speculative and unsustainable because the Controller failed to specify the source of this knowledge or demonstrate how a person skilled in the art would naturally combine it with the prior art D-5 to arrive at the invention.

3. Refusal of Amendment: The refusal to allow the appellant to amend the specifications to explain the technical advancement over the newly cited prior art (D-5) was deemed a violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The Court noted that amendments are permissible even at a subsequent stage or on appeal, provided they comply with Section 59 of the Patents Act.

The High Court directed that the application be restored and decided afresh by a different officer within four months.