Patent application no. 2254/DELNP/2005 was rejected the grant by the Asst. Controller on three grounds namely; invention not patentable under section 3(d), section 3(e) and claims 7 – 10 are beyond the scope of claim 1.

Anand & Anand, the counsels for the appellant (Tainjin Dishili) argued the matter on the grounds that the impugned order, which was little over one page, made no reference to the submissions made by the appellant during the prosecution or hearing or even to the technical affidavit submitted by the appellant and it was a copy-paste from various IPAB said that “This is not how an order shall be passed by the Patent Office. The Controller has the duty to examine the claims and test them for patentability. ”