**Case 10: Patent application entitled "Chaos Theoretical Exponent Value Calculation System"**

Patent application detail of case 10 is provided in **Table 9**.

The Appellant's invention is about the system which can analyze a time series signal using a method based on Chaos Theory and calculation of a chaos theoretical exponent value (CTEV). The conventional CTEV system was not calculating the temporarily changing dynamics as a significant value. In the present invention, the inventor proposed a system which can process at a high speed and on a real-time basis to calculate a CTEV even from a time series signal which includes noises. The average CTEV can also be calculated in a shorter time of two decimal orders or more.

As per First Examination Report (FER) of the Patent Office, the invention was not found to be patentable on the ground of clause (k) of Section 3 and Section 2(1) (j) of the Indian Patent Act, 1970. A response to the first examination report (FER) was filed by the applicant on 9th April 2008. The Deputy Controller rejected a patent under Section 15 by declaring that the invention still falls under **Section 3(k)** of the Patents Act.


#### **Table 9.**

*Patent application details for case 10 on A Chaos Theoretical Exponent Value Calculation System.*

The Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure provides a reason as to why mathematical or business methods are not considered patentable.

"Mathematical methods" includes mental skill as they are not patentable. Mathematical methods are used for writing algorithms and computer programs for different applications are also not patentable although the applicants may argue that the said invention is of technical advancement, not the mathematical model [17, 47, 48]."

Section 3(l). A literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any other esthetic creation whatsoever including cinematographic works and television productions [16] (Note: These subject matters fall under the copyright and related right protection);

Example: Prepare a drama from a book.

The patents protect ideas, not just expressions of them.

Section 3(m). A mere scheme or rule or method of performing mental act or method of playing a game;

Example: Method for solving a crossword puzzle, Method of learning a language Section 3(n). A presentation of information;

Example: Spoken words, symbols, diagrams [49].

Section 3(o). The topography of integrated circuits [50];

Three-dimensional configuration of the electronic circuits used in microchips and semiconductor chips is not patentable because protection of Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits is governed separately under the Semiconductor Integrated Circuit Lay-out Designs Act, 2000 [51].

Section 3(p). An invention which in effect, is traditional knowledge or which is an aggregation or duplication of known properties of a traditionally known component or components.

Use of turmeric, neem, tulsi, etc. is not patentable as it is traditionally known. Although, if someone develops a medicine from tradition plant, for example. Ointment having an active ingredient that is an extract from leaf of the plant, is patentable [52].

**45**

**Author details**

**Conflict of interest**

and Sandesh Lodha†

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

†These authors contributed equally.

provided the original work is properly cited.

Maliba Pharmacy College, Uka Tarsadia University, Surat, India

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

\*Address all correspondence to: hetalppatel1986@gmail.com

Hetal Patel\*†

*Case Study on Rejected Patents in India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92356*

1962 (33 of 1962) [54–57].

**6. Conclusions**

One device to collect agricultural produce was patented by DhanpatSheth. He made this device so flexible that it can fit to persons of varying height and size. Initially this patent was granted but afterward it was revoked as Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd. sui him in Himachal Pradesh High Court. The patent was revoked on the ground of lack of novelty (Section 2(1)(ja)), mere duplication of traditionally known component known as "Kilta" **(Section 3(p))** and mere replacement of raw material as plastic has been used in the patented product whereas bamboo was used in kilta [Section 3(d)] [53].

**5. Non-patentable inventions as per Section 4 of Indian Patent Act**

No patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act,

The patent is granted to the inventor to encourage innovations by providing exclusive rights to the owner for the limited period of time and to reveal his invention for propagation of knowledge and welfare of the society. Intellectual property protection is of larger importance to the researcher and research industries as the research and development process is expensive and time-consuming. In the present chapter, the authors have used a case study approach to explain patentability criteria and nonpatentable inventions as per the Indian Patent Act. By disseminating the knowledge on patentability and non-patentability criteria, the author will guide the researchers for answering the question of whether the research which they are doing is patentable or not? It will save time, money and manpower for the patent drafting, application, and examination process as well as promote researchers for doing patentable research.

**Case 11: Patent application entitled "device used for manually hauling agricultural produce"**

*Case Study on Rejected Patents in India DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92356*

One device to collect agricultural produce was patented by DhanpatSheth. He made this device so flexible that it can fit to persons of varying height and size. Initially this patent was granted but afterward it was revoked as Nil Kamal Plastic Crates Ltd. sui him in Himachal Pradesh High Court. The patent was revoked on the ground of lack of novelty (Section 2(1)(ja)), mere duplication of traditionally known component known as "Kilta" **(Section 3(p))** and mere replacement of raw material as plastic has been used in the patented product whereas bamboo was used in kilta [Section 3(d)] [53].
