The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 1 to 2.
Indian Patent Office updates Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions, yet again
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-patent-office-issues-updated-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions-yet-again
<b>By discarding a test brought into force last year, the updated Guidelines take no concrete position to help clarify the ambiguity around patentability of software inventions in India.</b>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>The Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs and
Trademarks (CGPDTM) issued new <a href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Revised__Guidelines_for_Examination_of_Computer-related_Inventions_CRI__.pdf">Guidelines
on Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs</a>) on 30<sup>th</sup> June,
making it easier to obtain a software patent in India (as compared to standards set in the 2016 Guidelines).</p>
<h2>New Changes</h2>
<p>The most important change is <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-new-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions-are-a-big-win-for-foss-in-india">removal
of a test notified in 2016</a> which made CRIs patent eligible provided there
was a novel hardware component in the patent application. Accordingly, references
in the guidelines which aided interpretation of the 2016 test have been
deleted. Additionally, the new guidelines exclude the layout of integrated
circuits as patentable subject matter in CRIs.</p>
<p>The CGPDTM has refrained from prescribing a new test to
determine patentability of CRIs.</p>
<p>In the absence of specific guidance, it is likely that examiners will heavily rely on section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970, the Manual of Patent Practice and Procedure, and the views expressed by the <a class="external-link" href="http://164.100.47.5/webcom/MoreInfo/PatentReport.pdf">Joint Parliamentary Committee</a> in respect of "per se":</p>
<p> <em> "In the new proposed clause (k) the words ''per se" have been
inserted. This change has been proposed because sometimes the computer
programme may include certain other things, <strong>ancillary thereto or developed thereon.</strong> The intention here is not to reject them for grant of patent if they are inventions. However, the <strong>computer programmes as such</strong> are not intended to be granted patent. This amendment has been proposed to clarify the purpose." </em></p>
<h2>Policymaking re Guidelines on Examination
of CRIs</h2>
<p>After years of deliberation, the Indian Patent Office <a class="external-link" href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris">first proposed
a test in 2015</a> which was met with disapproval as it lowered the bar for
patentability of CRIs. After a stakeholder consultation, the IPO revised the test
in 2016, raising the bar of patent eligibility of CRIs, which was favorable to the
growth of small and medium enterprises in the Indian IT industry. The present 2017
guidelines are a result of streamlining stakeholder consultations conducted in
response to the 2016 guidelines as per a <a href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Office_Order_No_36_of_2017_for_Revised__Guidelines_for_Examination_of_CRIs.pdf">circular</a>
by the IPO.</p>
<p>In the following table, I list the substantive changes made
in the new guidelines (in comparison to the 2016 Guidelines) and make some
preliminary remarks:</p>
<p></p>
<p></p>
<table class="grid">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><strong>Type of Change</strong></td>
<td><strong>Change</strong></td>
<td><strong>Remarks</strong></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Inserted in 2.1, <strong>Legal Provisions relating to CRIs</strong>
and
Deleted in 4.1, <strong>Novelty</strong></td>
<td>Section 2 (1)(l) defines “new invention” in The Indian Patents Act,
1970 as follows:
"New invention" means any invention or technology which has
not been anticipated by publication in any document or used in the country or elsewhere in the world before the date
of filing of patent application with complete specification, i.e. the subject
matter has not fallen in public domain or that it does not form part of the
state of the art</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br /><br />Added in 2.2, <strong>List of explicit exclusions from patentability under
section 3 for CRIs</strong></td>
<td>Section 3(o) topography of integrated circuits</td>
<td>Contemplates layout of integrated circuits as subject matter relating
to CRIs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Parts deleted in 4.3, <strong>Industrial Applicability</strong></td>
<td><br /><br />Industry herein is to be understood broadly having any useful and
practical activity while excluding intellectual or aesthetic activity.
Claims relating to “Method of playing games” and “computer
programming languages” are not considered to be industrially applicable. A
method for effecting introductions with a view to making friends is not
industrially applicable even though it could be carried out by a commercial
enterprise.
The determination of industrial applicability in case of CRIs is very
crucial since applications relating to CRIs may contain only abstract
theories, lacking in industrial application.</td>
<td>Only an explanation of industrial applicability in the general
context of patent law remains.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Deleted in 4.4, <strong>Sufficiency of Disclosure </strong>(strikethrough indicates
deleted part)</td>
<td><br /><br />4.4.1 Fully and particularly (What):
1. If the patent application
relates to apparatus/system/device i.e hardware based inventions, each and
every feature of the invention shall be described with suitable illustrative
drawings. <s>If these system/device/apparatus claims are worded in such a way
that they merely and only comprise of a memory which stores instructions to
execute the previously claimed method and a processor to execute these
instructions, then this set of claims claiming a system/device /apparatus may
be deemed as conventional and may not fulfil the eligibility criteria of
patentability. </s>
If, however, the invention relates to ‘method’, the necessary
sequence of steps should clearly be described so as to distinguish the
invention from the prior art with the help of the flowcharts and other
information required to perform the invention together with their modes/means
of implementation.
[…]</td>
<td>Loosened the disclosure requirement</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Deleted in 4.4, <strong>Sufficiency of Disclosure</strong> (strikethrough indicates
deleted part)</td>
<td><br />4.4.4 Form and substance:
[…]
Even when the issue is related to hardware/software relation, <s>(e.g.,
when the claims recite ‘processor is programmed to… or ‘apparatus comprising
a processor and configured / programmed to…..)</s> the expression of the
functionality as a ‘method’, is judged on its substance. It is well established that, in
patentability cases, the focus should be on the underlying substance of the
invention, not the particular form in which it is claimed. The Patents Act
clearly excludes computer programmes per se and the exclusion should not be
allowed to be avoided merely by camouflaging the substance of the claim by
wording <s>(e.g. different subroutines are performed in different physical
locations such as processors will not suffice).</s></td>
<td>Removed illustrations</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Replaced in 4.4, <strong>Sufficiency of Disclosure</strong> (strikethrough indicates
deleted part)</td>
<td><br /><br />4.4.5 Means Plus Function:
<p>Further, if the specification supports <s>implementation</s>
of the invention solely by the computer program then in that case means plus
function claims shall be rejected as these means are nothing but computer
programme per se.</p>
<p>Where no structural features of those means are disclosed in
the specification and specification supports <s>implementation</s> of the
invention solely by the software then in that case means in the “means plus
function” claims are nothing but software.</p>
</td>
<td> Replaced both struck out words by<em> performing the invention</em><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br /><br />Added in 4.5, <strong>Determination of excluded subject matter relating to
CRIs</strong></td>
<td><br />[…] Hence, along with determining the merit of invention as envisaged
under Sections 2(1) (j), (ja) and (ac), the examiner should also determine
whether or not they are patentable inventions under Section 3 of the Act.</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br />Parts deleted in 4.5.1. <strong>Claims directed as “Mathematical Method”</strong>:</td>
<td><br />[…]
Some examples which will attract exclusion:
acts of mental skill. e.g. A
method of calculation, formulation of equations, finding square roots, cube
roots and all other methods directly involving mathematical methods like
solving advanced equations of mathematics.
merely manipulates abstract
idea or solves a purely mathematical problem without specifying a practical
application.</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Added in in 4.5.1. <strong>Claims directed as “Mathematical Method”</strong> (emphasis
supplied)</td>
<td><br /><br />4.5.1. Claims directed as “Mathematical Method”:
Mathematical methods are a particular example of the principle that
purely abstract or intellectual methods are not patentable. Mathematical
methods like method of calculation, formulation of equations, finding square
roots, cube roots and all other similar acts of mental skill are therefore,
not patentable. <strong><u>Similarly mere
manipulations of abstract idea or solving purely mathematical
problem/equations without specifying a practical application also attract the
exclusion under this category.</u></strong>
<strong> </strong>
However, mere presence of a mathematical formula in a claim, to
clearly specify the scope of protection being sought in an invention, may not
necessarily render it to be a “mathematical method” claim. <strong><u>Also, such exclusions may not apply to
inventions that include mathematical formulae and resulting in systems for
encoding, reducing noise in communications/ electrical/electronic systems or
encrypting/ decrypting electronic communications</u></strong><u>.</u></td>
<td>Illustrations added to show that CRIs that include mathematical
formulae and result in systems for encoding, reducing noise in
communications/ electrical/electronic systems or encrypting/ decrypting
electronic communications, will not be ineligible merely by virtue of
presence of mathematical formulae. They will not necessarily construe a claim
on mathematical method.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br /><br />Part deleted in 4.5.4, <strong>Claims directed as “Computer Programme per se”</strong></td>
<td>The computer programme per se is excluded from patentability under
section 3(k) apart from mathematical or business method and algorithm</td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br /><br />Inserted in 4.5, <strong>Determination of excluded subject matter relating to
CRIs </strong>(emphasis supplied)</td>
<td>4.5.8. Topography of integrated circuits
The above criterion is to be judged as per the procedures as laid out
in chapter 08.03.05.14 of the Manual</td>
<td>Contemplates layout of integrated circuits as subject matter relating
to CRIs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Parts deleted in 5, <strong>Tests/Indicators to determine Patentability of
CRIs</strong></td>
<td><br /><br />5. Tests/Indicators to
determine Patentability of CRIs:
Examiners may rely on the following three stage test in examining CRI
applications:
(1) Properly construe the
claim and identify the actual contribution;
(2) If the contribution
lies only in mathematical method, business method or algorithm, deny the
claim;
(3) If the contribution lies
in the field of computer programme, check whether it is claimed in
conjunction with a novel hardware and proceed to other steps to determine
patentability with respect to the invention. The computer programme in itself
is never patentable. If the contribution lies solely in the computer
programme, deny the claim. If the contribution lies in both the computer
programme as well as hardware, proceed to other steps of patentability.</td>
<td>Implication is that this test is no longer in force for examination
of patentability of CRIs</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><br /><br />Deleted 6, <strong>Illustrative examples of Claims which are not patentable</strong></td>
<td><em>Refer to 2016 Guidelines</em></td>
<td><br /></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p> Note: This post has been updated to reflect the change in point 4.4.5, which was previously missed by the author.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-patent-office-issues-updated-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions-yet-again'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/indian-patent-office-issues-updated-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions-yet-again</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaIndian Patents Act Section 3(k)PatentsAccess to KnowledgeSoftware Patents2017-07-05T07:42:44ZBlog EntryComments on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs)
http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris
<b>Recently, the Indian Patents Office released the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (“2015 Guidelines/ Guidelines”) in an attempt to clarify examination of software related patents in India. This post is a pure analysis of the 2015 Guidelines. The new Guidelines, essentially, narrow the exclusions of secttion 3(k), thereby enlarging the scope of software related applications eligible for a patent grant. More alarmingly, there is low emphasis on the application of the subject matter test, increased ambiguity on the nature of subject matter and an exclusionary list of examples appended to the document. In the following post, CIS highlights these concerns and presents solutions, and also proposes a definition of "computer programme per se".
Read on to understand how the new guidelines will potentially lead to an increase in software patenting activity by expanding the scope of patentable subject matter – in negation of the legislative intent of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prepared with comments from Pranesh Prakash)</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/CRI_Guidelines_21August2015.pdf">2015 Guidelines</a> were stuck in the pipeline for a long time. The first draft was released in 2013 and a round of public consultation later, it paved the way for the current guidelines. The guidelines exist to supplement the practices and procedures followed by the Patent Office (as prescribed in the Indian 'Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure')<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>, with the specific objective of ensuring consistent and uniform examination of CRI applications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To begin with, the Guidelines have been significantly trimmed down from their draft version. CIS had <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-draft-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions">commented on the Draft Guidelines in 2013</a> and broadly observed/recommended the following:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>That the explanation to section 3(k) (Para 2.4) include the subject matter test.</li>
<li>That the Guidelines clarify that section 3(k) intending to exclude “<em>computer programs per se</em>” means excluding computer programs <strong>by themselves</strong>.</li>
<li>Supplying clarifications to the meaning of Inventive Step </li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> Para 5.3 stated: <em>(ja) "inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;</em></p>
<em> </em>
<p>Ambiguity around the terms “technical advance” and “person skilled in the art” persists.</p>
<p> </p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>The Guidelines place CRIs in the same pool as other inventions, to the extent of suggesting that CRIs be evaluated on same standards of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability as other inventions. This is problematic, because CRIs are inventions with features such as obsolence and being largely incremental innovations.</li>
<li>That the guidelines prescribing dictionary meanings for undefined terms (in Indian statutes) – was a dangerous prescription to make because the words “firmware”, “software”, “hardware” and “algorithm” have different meanings in different contexts.</li>
<li>That the guidelines had a misguided sense of ordering the paragraphs. The subject matter test (which should be undertaken first) was mentioned after the narrower test for <em>computer programs per se. </em>To ensure correct examination re CRIs the application of the subject matter test should precede all other patent criterion evaluations.<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a></li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">All the above observations/recommendations still hold true – unfortunately, none of them have been incorporated into the 2015 Guidelines. The few <em>unwanted</em> changes that eventually made their way have nullified the progress the 2013 draft made in terms of providing clarity to section 3(k) and narrowing down the scope of software patents. For instance-</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Instead of supplying clarity to terms such as “technical effect”, “technical advancement”, the 2015 Guidelines removethe definition of these terms. However, section 6 lists six questions that must be addressed by the examiner to determine the technical advancement of the invention.</li>
<li>Similarly, the explanation to section 3(k) has been deleted in the 2015 text.</li>
<li>The explanation to “inventive step” made reference to the <em>Enercon case</em> (thereby <em>Windsurfing International Inc.</em> and <em>Pozzoli case)</em>, for the determination of inventive step. The explanation has also been discarded in the 2015 Guidelines.</li>
<li>Other changes include providing better definition of Algorithms, making thescope of mathematical model and business method claims under section 3(k) more expansive.</li></ul>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Narrowing down excluded subject matter relating to CRIs</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Under the crucial section “<strong>Determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs</strong>” (section 5.4 in the draft Guidelines; section 4.5 in 2015 Guidelines), the 2013 draft deemed inventions consisting of computer programmes combined with general purpose computers as non-patentable. However, a computer programme couple with novel hardware was deemed possibly patentable subject matter. That version stated <em>“5.4.6....In cases where the novelty resides in the device, machine or apparatus and if such devices are claimed in combination with the novel or known computer programmes to make their functionality definitive, the claims to these devices may be considered patentable, if the invention has passed the triple test of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. ” </em>In the 2015 Guidelines, however, section 4.5 does not shed substantive light on the matter of patentability of software combined with novel hardware. Instead a new section titled “Determinants” has been introduced:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em>5. Determinants</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> 5.1 For being considered patentable, the subject matter should involve either</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> - a novel hardware, or</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> -a novel hardware with a novel computer programme, or</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> -a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> A computer program, when running on or loaded into a computer, going beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the software and the hardware on which it is run, and is capable of bringing further technical effect may not be considered as exclusion under these provisions.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">And,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em> 6. Indicators to determine technical advancement</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>6.1 While examining CRI applications, the examiner shall confirm that the claims have the requisite technical advancement. The following questions should be addressed by the examiner while determining the technical advancement of the inventions concerning CRIs:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (i) whether the claimed technical feature has a technical contribution on a process which is carried on outside the computer;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (ii) whether the claimed technical feature operates at the level of the architecture of the computer;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (iii) whether the technical contribution is by way of change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (iv) whether the claimed technical contribution results in the computer being</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> made to operate in a new way;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (v) in case of a computer programme linked with hardware, whether the programme makes the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (vi) whether the change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware amounts to technical advancement.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> If answer to ANY of the above questions is in affirmative, the invention may not be considered as exclusion under section 3 (k) of the Patents Act, 1970.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It is evident from section 5 that the Patent Office intends to expand the scope of patentable subject matter, and narrow down applicability of section 3(k). The clause “<em>a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.” </em>contributes to the expansion. There is no definition as to what will constitute<em>“...normal interaction with such hardware...” </em>Neither do the Guidelines set a standard for assessment of “normal interaction.” Should “normal interaction” be determined from the definition/perspective supplied by the vendor, or from the known universe of interactions possible from that device?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, as a stakeholder (<a href="http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/CRI_Comments_Feedbacks/related_doc/Comments%20to%20Guidelines%20for%20Examination%20of%20CRIs%20-%20Anand%20and%20Anand.pdf">Anand and Anand</a>) in their <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions">comments on the 2013 draft</a> pointed out, increasing the threshold to a novel hardware (and not just a general purpose computing machine) would go against the legislative intent as the requirement of a novel hardware was not mentioned anywhere in the Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">These gaps may pave the path for a rather broad scope of patentable software inventions.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Secondary application of the subject matter test</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>“...Therefore, if a computer programme is not claimed by “in itself” rather, it has been claimed in such manner so as to establish industrial applicability of the invention and fulfills all other criterion of patentability, the patent should not be denied. In such a scenario, the claims in question shall have to be considered taking in to account whole of the claims. ”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The way 3(k) functions is that it's a subject matter test for what an invention is (with non-inventions excluded, since an application that has not been found to be in order may not be granted a patent <br /> under s.43, and to be 'in order', the application has to be "for an invention" (s.6, s.10, etc.)). The tests for novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability have to in any case be applied, regardless of the subject matter test. So what the above-quoted sentence does is removes the subject matter test, as it uses "in itself" to mean to the exclusion of patentability tests other than subject matter.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Proposed definition of “computer programme per se”</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, CIS suggests a definition to "computer programme per se":</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>"Computer programme per se in the relevant clause means (a) any computer programme in the abstract, (b) any computer programme expressed in source code form, including source code recorded on an information storage medium, or (c) any computer programme that can be executed or executes on a general purpose computer, including computer programme object code designed for execution on a general purpose computer that is recorded on an information storage medium." </em><br /> <br /> Furthermore, since the inclusion of computer programmes in a broader application should not render the application ineligible subject matter, CIS previously proposed an addition to the test:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>"We propose a new part to the above test to make the clause clearer. The Manual should specify that “the computer programme portions of any claimed invention should be treated as if it were covered by prior art and patentability should thus be determined with respect to the other features of the invention”. This way, we can ensure that an invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer programme </em>per se<em>." </em></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Issues with illustrative examples</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS observes that most of the examples provided in the document are things that should <strong>*not*</strong> be awarded patents as per section 3(k). <br /> <br /> 8.2 describes a computer programme per se, and awarding a patent to this would (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.4 describes a computer programme per se. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.5 describes a computer programme per se. The "repeaters", etc., are software. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.6 describes a computer programme per se. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.8 describes a computer programme per se. It can be implemented on any general purpose computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.1 is a simple algorithm, and forms the basis of parallel processing in a computer, of which a wireless device is a subset. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.1, 8.3, 8.7 have no novelty, no inventive step, despite not being computer programmes per se.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This issue was also raised by stakeholders in their <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions">comments to the IPO on the 2013 draft. </a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Conclusion</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The 2015 Guidelines have narrowed the exclusions in section 3(k) – which does not bode well for innovation, especially innovation by startup enterprises. The new guidelines will permit a larger scope of applications to be granted, which will lead to bigger players in the market amassing huger patent portfolios. There is also an urgent need for clarification on “ novel hardware”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">On a broader level, CIS has <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/arguments-against-software-patents">repeatedly argued for discarding patent protection</a> for software inventions, because of the unique nature of such inventions and the repercussions software patenting has on subsequent innovative activity. The 2015 Guidelines disappoint on rolling back and clarifying software patenting in India.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a>Chapter 08.03.05.10 of the Manual, containing provisions pertaining to section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 shall stand deleted with coming into force of these Guidelines for examination of CRIs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a>The flow chart in the 2013 draft guidelines show a step by step process of examining CRIs. However, the subject matter determination is done towards the end. There is debate on whether there should be a set order for examining patents. However, in the case of CRIs there must be an exception as the statute explicitly prohibits certain types of patents (business method, algorithm etc). As argued earlier, in order to reduce transaction costs, the subject matter test must be made at the very beginning. There should at least be a preliminary determination as to Section 3(k) to reject patent applications for those inventions that can easily be classified under this provision.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris'>http://editors.cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaSoftware PatentsAccess to KnowledgeIntellectual Property RightsIndian Patents Act Section 3(k)Patents2015-10-27T14:46:24ZBlog Entry