Stromag GmbH filed a patent application for a \u201cHydraulically Actuatable Disk Brake and Azimuth Drive.\u201d The Patent Office raised objections under Sections 2(1)(j), 3(f), and 10 of the Patents Act in its First Examination Report (FER). The applicant amended its claims and filed detailed responses. A hearing was held, and further written submissions were provided. However, the Controller rejected the application, stating, in a single sentence, that the claimed invention was a mere combination of known prior arts.<\/p>\n
The court stated that the refusal order did not contain any analytical reasoning. It held that the mere reproduction of prior art followed by a conclusion that the claimed invention lacks an inventive step does not constitute a legally sustainable order. According to the court, a quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its decision, as reasons are the soul of any judicial or quasi-judicial order.<\/p>\n
The court referred to several Supreme Court judgments to emphasise that:<\/p>\n
The court concluded that in the absence of \u201cwhy,\u201d the \u201cwhat\u201d in the decision cannot stand. It stated that a conclusion must be connected to a clear analytical path that considers the arguments, evidence, and law.<\/p>\n
The court set aside the refusal order for being unreasoned and in violation of principles of natural justice. It remanded the matter to a different Hearing Officer with directions to adjudicate the application afresh within four months after granting a hearing.<\/p>\n
The court cited and relied on the following key paragraphs from previous judgments:<\/p>\n