“Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that the rejection order was vitiated as it failed to record findings on significant objections. The Court observed that the provisional specification disclosed only a suspo-emulsion (‘SE’) formulation and even asserted that SE was superior to EC and emphasised that later claims referring to EC formulations were not fairly based on the provisional specification. Noting further that several prior art documents and affidavits were ignored, the Court set aside the order and directed that the matter be reconsidered by a different officer through a speaking order within four months. Background:” https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2025/12/08/madras-hc-lack-of-findings-on-provisional-specification-vitiates-patent-rejection-herbicidal-composition-patent-application-reconsideration/#:~:text=Judge%20Bench%20of,Background%3A
“Judge Bench of Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, J., held that the rejection order was vitiated as it failed to record findings on significant objections. The Court observed that the provisional specification disclosed only a suspo-emulsion (‘SE’) formulation and even asserted that SE was superior to EC and emphasised that later claims referring to EC formulations were not fairly based on the provisional specification. Noting further that several prior art documents and affidavits were ignored, the Court set aside the order and directed that the matter be reconsidered by a different officer through a speaking order within four months.
Background:”
Failure to record findings on provisional specification vitiates Patent rejection order: Madras HC
