Delhi High Court
Blackberry Limited vs Controller Of Patents And Designs on 30 April, 2026
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.04.2026
+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022
BLACKBERRY LIMITED .....Appellant
versus
CONTROLLER OF PATENTS AND DESIGNS .....Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Appellant : Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Ashutosh
Upadhyaya and Mr. Sandeep Bhola,
Advocates.
For the Respondent : Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with MR. Rajneesh
Kr. Sharma, Ms. Minakshi Singh, Mr.
Ashutosh Bharti and Ms. Shivangi Sharma,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an Appeal filed under Section 117A of the Patents Act, 1970
(“Act”) seeking quashing and setting aside of orders dated 11.10.2019
(“Impugned Order I”) and 05.03.2020 (“Impugned Order II”) passed by
the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (“Respondent /
Controller”) under Section 15 of the Act (“Impugned Orders”) refusing
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 1 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
the Patent Application No. 1976/DEL/2008 filed on 20.08.2008 titled as
“COLOUR DIFFERENTIATING A PORTION OF A TEXT MESSAGE
SHOWN IN A LISTING ON A HANDHELD COMMUNICATION DEVICE”
(“Subject Application”).
FACTUAL MATRIX
2. The Subject Application claims priority from European Patent
Application No. 07117003.9 filed on 21.09.2007 (“EP Application”). The
Subject Application and the request for examination for the same was filed
on 20.08.2008. The Subject Application was published under Section 11(A)
of the Act on 17.04.2009.
3. The Subject Application was examined, and First Examination Report
was issued on 10.09.2014 (“FER”). The substantial objection raised in the
FER relates to the claims lacking novelty under Section 2(1)(j) of the Act in
view of the document EP1767008 (A1) (“D1”). The documents
US6671718B1 (“D2”) and US2003/0084109A (“D3”) were cited as relevant
documents. The claims were also objected under Section 3(k) of the Act for
falling within the scope of computer program.
4. In response to the objections raised in the FER, the Appellant’s Agent
submitted the response via their letter dated 01.05.2015, uploaded on the
portal on the Patent Office on 05.05.2015 (“Reply”). Thereafter, a hearing
notice dated 06.08.2019 (“Hearing Notice I”) scheduling a hearing for
21.08.2019 (“Hearing I”). During the Hearing I, the Respondent raised an
oral objection under Section 3(k) of the Act and directed the Agent for the
Appellant to present submissions with respect to Section 3(k) of the Act.
The post-Hearing I written submissions were filed by the Appellant on
04.09.2019 (“Written Submissions I”).
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 2 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
5. Thereafter, the Respondent via the Impugned Order I, refused the
Subject Application. On 11.11.2019, the Appellant filed a review application
(“Review Petition”) under Sections 77(1)(f) and 15 of the Act against the
Impugned Order I. The Respondent issued a hearing notice dated 22.01.2020
(“Hearing Notice II”) scheduling a hearing for 10.02.2020 (“Hearing II”).
The post-Hearing II written submissions were filed by the Appellant on
25.02.2020 (“Written Submissions II”).
6. The review application was dismissed vide the Impugned Order II.
Hence, the Appellant has filed the present Appeal seeking to set aside the
Impugned Orders and grant of the Patent under the Subject Application.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT
7. The learned Counsel for the Appellant made the following
submissions:
7.1. The Appellant is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of Ontario, Canada. The Appellant specializes in providing
telecommunication solutions including, but not limited to,
enterprise software and Internet of Things. The Appellant is well
known as a former developer of the BlackBerry brand of
smartphones and tablets and its products are used worldwide by
various businesses, car makers, and government agencies.
7.2. The present invention relates to the field of handheld wireless
communication devices. The handheld devices have a very small
screen size compared to standard desktop where users can
implement filters or otherwise easily distinguish recipients. The
handheld devices require user interfaces created for limited
screen size, through which users input and perform sophisticatedSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 3 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
operations including sending messages. Considering the limited
amount of information that can be displayed on handheld
devices, the handled devices require UIs that allow users to easily
and quickly distinguish intended recipients in an outgoing
message and prevent re-sending of messages to correct
recipients. The quick visual identification of any unintended
recipients reduces the likelihood of sending inadvertent messages
to unintended recipients and further saves the time and resources
of the handheld communication device in re-sending the
messages to the correct recipients.
7.3. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Ferid Allani v. Union
of India & Ors., 2019 SCC Online Del 11867 held the following:
“10. It is rare to see a product which is not based on a
computer program. … Thus, the effect that such programs
produce including in digital and electronic products is
crucial in determining the test of patentability. Patent
applications in these (computer) fields would have to be
examined to see if they result in a ‘technical contribution.
…”
7.4. The essential ingredients for an invention to qualify the threshold
of the inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Act, includes:
(i) the invention involves a technical advancement as compared
to existing knowledge or economic significance or both; and (ii)
makes the invention non-obvious to the persons skilled in the art
(“PSITA”). These are conjunctive requirements under Section
2(1)(ja) of the Act, which means that not only should there be a
technical advancement in the invention but at the same time, it
should not be obvious to the PSITA. Therefore, both the
requirements are to be satisfied conjunctively. The SubjectSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 4 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
Application fulfils both criteria, technical advancement and non-
obviousness. Accordingly, the invention claimed in the Subject
Application is inventive.
7.5. The Respondent has failed to understand the present invention.
The Respondent’s reasoning suffers from hindsight bias, and
begins to rationalize how teachings in various prior arts could be
combined to solve the problem which is being solved by the
present invention.
7.6. D1 addresses a situation where when the user cannot easily
distinguish between the messages received, there is a probability
that the user will be unable to recognize an important message or
accidentally delete the message. Therefore, D1 aims to display
messages to the user in a proper order or format, so that the user
can easily distinguish between them.
7.7. In D1, incoming messages are grouped with other received
messages that are associated with the same message attribute.
Specifically, the application software in D1 processes the
message(s) to determine if a message attribute identifies the
message as belonging to a category predefined by the user. The
received messages are grouped with other received messages that
are associated with the same message attribute.
7.8. On the contrary, the Subject Application enables a user to easily
and quickly distinguish recipients in an outgoing draft message
using a colour code based upon a message address characteristic
such as the identity of the host’s name associated with the
message addresses of recipients. The claims of the Subject
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 5 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
Application which relate to identifying intended recipients for an
outgoing draft message is different from D1. In the present
invention, the sender of the message is enabled to determine
whether the recipients of the message are those to whom the
message should be sent.
7.9. D2 involves marking of a confirmation box in an alert received
by the user so as to allow the user to modify the list or cancel the
sending entirely or to alert the user in case of a potentially
undeliverable message. D2 merely recites displaying all of the
addresses in a dialogue with an alert colour such as red, to draw
the attention of the user to the dialogue box itself. According to
D2, a user enters a message and then presses send. The system
then pre-displays recipients and the user accept or modifies the
recipients Particularly, D2 in Column No. 3, describes a system
in which a user receives an alert including a list of addresses
divided according to their addressee status in Sections ‘To’, ‘cc’,
and ‘bee’, etc., before each message is sent. A user of the system
must then mark a confirmation box associated with each of the
addresses in the list. As per D2, all recipient addresses must be
individually reviewed and approved or disapproved by the user.
7.10. There is no suggestion or teaching in D2 of an automatic and
immediate visual indication of recipient names, based on the host
names, enabling the users to identify and distinguish the
recipients even while writing the message. D1 and D2 do not
parse the host name from the identification code and differentiate
the recipients based thereon.
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 6 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
7.11. Contrary to D1 and D2, in the present invention in the Subject
Application, message addresses are dynamically examined in a
device to obtain the messages’ address characteristics which
includes the host name / domain name / organization. The
respective names of intended recipients may be distinguished
according to affiliation of particular users with each other and
displayed in a manner colour differentiated by respective host
name / domain name / organization. This provides an easy way to
distinguish the intended recipients of a message especially given
a user may not implement filters on the messages sent to and
from the handheld communication device in the device’s
message application as they do on the desktop.
7.12. D1 and D2, thus, fail to defeat the inventive merit of the Subject
Application. The decision is purely hindsight based on the claims
and not on the cited references as none of the documents suggest
the conclusion drawn by the Respondent. Therefore, the claims
of the Subject Application involve an inventive step. While
conducting an inquiry into obviousness, hindsight is
impermissible and the legal conclusion must be reached on the
basis of facts gleaned from the prior art and should not include
knowledge gleaned from patent disclosure. Reliance was placed
upon the decision in F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. & Anr. v.
Cipla Ltd., Neutral Citation: 2015:DHC:9674-DB while making
the above submission.
7.13. The Appellant has secured grant in several corresponding
applications in major countries such as USA and European Union
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 7 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
for substantially the same invention, i.e., EP2275980B1 and
US8682394B2. The Respondent has, thus, erred in holding that
the Subject Application lacks inventive step and ought to have
allowed the Subject Application to grant the patent in accordance
with the provisions of the Act and the Patent Rules, 2003.
7.14. The Respondent has erred in adjudicating that claims of the
Subject Application are not patentable under Section 3(k) of the
Act because the subject matter of the claims of the Subject
Application relates to computer program per se or algorithm. The
invention Subject Application is directed to addressing the
technical problem.
7.15. The Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure (“Manual”)
at Paragraph No. 09.03.03.02 under the “Determination of
Inventive Step” states that:
“1. For determination of inventive step, the prior art as a
whole, revealed during the search process, is relied upon to
assess if such prior art(s) disclose(s) the claimed invention.
2. Invention as a whole shall be considered. In other words, it
is not sufficient to draw the conclusion that a claimed
invention is obvious merely because individual parts of the
claims taken separately are known or might be found to be
obvious.
*** *** ***
4. For the purpose of establishing obviousness of the
invention to a person skilled in the art, mosaicing multiple
documents of prior arts is permissible, if the cited prior art
provides lead to the skilled person to combine the teachings
thereunder, at the time of filing or priority date of patent
application.”
7.16. Reliance was placed upon the decision in Enercon (India)
Limited v. Aloys Wobben, Order No. 123/2013 in
ORA/08/2009/PT/CH, wherein the Court held that the mere
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 8 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
existence in the prior arts, of each of the elements in the
invention, will not ipso facto mean obviousness. There must be a
coherent thread leading from the prior arts to the invention, the
tracing of the thread must be an act which follows obviously. The
relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:
“43. … For after all most inventions are built with prior
known puzzle-pieces. We must apply this reasoning to test if
indeed it is obvious, or if it seems to us to be obvious to the
person skilled in the art because of what we know now. If it is
the latter, it is hindsight deduction and is not acceptable, but
if it is the former, then the patent must go.”
7.17. The improvement in user convenience and ergonomics give rise
to technical effect. Article 52(2)(c) of The European Patent
Convention is a provision that is pari materia to Section 3(k) of
the Act. With respect to comparison to foreign jurisdictions,
Indian approach mirrors global standards. Even under the U.S.
Alice Test and European problem-solution framework, software
inventions are patentable when they improve the functioning of a
computer or a technological process. Reliance was placed upon
the decision in Raytheon Company v. Controller General of
Patents and Designs, Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:6673 and
Halliburton Energy Services Inc’s Patent Application, [2011]
EWHC 2508 (Pat) while making the above submission.
7.18. The present invention provides a technical advantage enabling a
person to quickly and easily identify the intended recipients of
the messages and to efficiently use the handheld device to
respond to the message ensuring such that the message is going
to the proper and intended recipients. The invention also reduces
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 9 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
the user – device interaction steps that would otherwise be
required to go through each message address in an outgoing
message. This advantageously helps to prevent a potentially
sensitive message from being inadvertently sent outside the
sender’s domain or to an unintended recipient. The present
invention, therefore, provides the technical effect relating to
efficiently and quickly differentiating between recipients of the
message before the message is sent in devices with limited screen
size.
7.19. The Appellant had filed three cases before this Court in
Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and
Designs, Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3100; Blackberry Limited
v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Neutral Citation:
2024:DHC:6571; and Blackberry Limited v. Assistant
Controller of Patents and Designs, Neutral Citation:
2024:DHC:6572. This Court ruled in favour of the Appellant in
Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and
Designs, Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:3100 and Blackberry
Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Neutral
Citation: 2024:DHC:6572.
7.20. The legal position is settled that inventions demonstrating
technical effect or technical contribution are patentable. Section
3(k) of the Act excludes only computer programs per se, i.e.,
disembodied algorithms or policy frameworks without technical
application. The test, as reaffirmed by this Court in Blackberry
Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, NeutralSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 10 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
Citation: 2025:DHC:3100 and Ferid Allani (supra), is whether
the invention provides a technical solution to a technical
problem. The present invention squarely satisfies this test.
7.21. The device-level integration of domain verification and alias
display enhances reliability and security of handheld
communication. This improvement is neither business-driven nor
administrative but purely technical. It increases the device’s
operational autonomy, ensuring trust validation without human
intervention.
7.22. Section 117A of the Act provides a statutory right to an applicant
of patent application to file an appeal against the order of learned
Controller under Section 15 of the Act.
7.23. It is settled law that if an invention exhibits a technical effect and
a technical contribution, such inventions cannot be excluded
under Section 3(k) of the Act. By focusing solely on the
implementation of the invention using computer-executable
instructions and algorithms on a general purpose computing
device, the technical effect and technical solution of the claims
must be considered for patentability. The inventive step does not
lie in the business concept but rather lies in the technical process.
Reliance was placed upon the following decisions while making
the above submission:
a. Microsoft Technology v. The Assistant Controller of
Patents and Designs, Neutral Citation: 2023:DHC:3342
b. Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents and
Designs, Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6572Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 11 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
c. Comviva Technologies Limited v. Assistant Controller of
Patents and Designs, Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8990
7.24. Accordingly, the Appeal may be allowed and the Impugned
Orders I and II are liable to be set aside.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT
8. The learned CGSC for the Respondent made the following
submissions:
8.1. The subject matter of the Subject Application is obvious for a
PSITA in view of D1 and D2 and does not constitute an
invention.
8.2. The alleged feature “differentiating between recipients and
notifying the sender of the message before the message is sent”
itself is not of technical nature. The method proposed in the
Subject Application may provide comfort and convenience in
managing an address book but it is not technical in nature.
8.3. A technical problem is universal in nature and technicality does
not varied person to person. For example, noise in a
communication system. Here every person faces the same noise
problem if using the same communication system. But an error in
sending a message with respect to recipient cannot be considered
a technical problem because it depends on the person sending the
message. It is not guaranteed that the said error committed by a
person shall also be committed by another person.
8.4. Moreover, the problem of choosing wrong recipients is not
arising due to small size of screens but it is a human error which
may occur with any screen size. This error also varies fromSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 12 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
person to person. Choosing a correct recipient may be
problematic to one person at the same time other person may not
find any problem at all.
8.5. The Appellant’s argument that Computer Related Invention
(“CRI”) guidelines issued in 2013 also cited an “improved user
interface” as an example of a technical effect is not acceptable as
CRI, 2013 has already been superseded by CRI, 2016 and CRI,
2017 and CRIs of 2016 and 2017 have no such example.
Therefore, the present invention in the Subject Application lies in
various software implemented non-technical processes like
associating colour, accepting message address, examining
message address, displaying message information etc. One of the
major alleged inventive features of the Subject Application is
colour coding with intended recipient; this feature is not a
technical feature. This is just managing the address book to avoid
errors; therefore, can be called a data management style.
8.6. Moreover, the limitations recited in the claims are all software
limitations defining the procedure that should be followed
through the execution of specific commands. It is, therefore,
derived that the actual contribution of the present invention
solely lies in computer program / algorithm as such. The only
hardware which is disclosed is the wireless communication
device, which is just a mobile terminal device, that executes
program in a conventional or normal manner devoid from any
interaction beyond the normal hardware-software interaction.
Further, the problem being addressed relates to an administrativeSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 13 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
/ business solution for data management. The subject matter is
administrative and non-technical in nature pertaining to business
needs / motives. Consequently, the subject matter of Claim Nos.
1 to 14 of the Subject Application relates to computer program
per se or algorithm and falls within scope of Section 3(k) of the
Act.
8.7. The grant of a patent, in general, in all global jurisdictions is
subject to fulfilling the criteria of an invention being solidly
backed on the planks of possession of ‘novelty’, ‘non-
obviousness attributes’ and ‘commercial viability’. The Act
introduced in qualifying criteria for an invention the attribute of
Section 2(j) and / or Section 2(j)(a).
8.8. The USA and European Union jurisdictions use concept of
‘anticipation’ as a tool to evaluate the ‘novelty’ plank while
assessing the patentability. In the Act, though the ‘Anticipation
of Invention’ is not specifically defined, yet Section 2(1)(l)
defines a “new invention” as one which is not anticipated by
prior art or prior publication in either India or abroad, and thus,
represents homologous origin of the concept in so far as the test
for novelty is concerned.
8.9. The Appellant had participated and attended the Hearing I and
filed the Written Submissions I which were then assessed again
by the Respondent, and based on the assessment the Respondent
passed a reasoned and speaking order vide the Impugned Order I
whereby the Subject Application was refused under Section 15 of
the Act on the grounds that the Subject Application was unable toSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 14 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
meet out the objections of Sections 2(1)(j) and 3(k) of the Act
whereby the Subject Application was assessed as being a
“computer program per se” and / or a business method that is not
allowable under the Act.
8.10. Additionally, thereafter the Review Petition preferred by the
Appellant, was dismissed vide Impugned Order II by categorical
finding of law recorded on the non-maintainability and invalidity
of Impugned Orders I and II and on this ground alone the present
Appeal filed by the Appellant suffers from legal infirmities and
warrants no interference from this Court.
8.11. In view of the pre-dated prior art citations Dl to D3 and the
evidence on record of the Subject Application being existent in
public domain through more than 60 citations ‘incorporated by
reference’ in Dl to D3 of the Subject Application was rightly
refused for not being able to comply with the provisions /
requirements of Section 2 (1)(j) of the Act.
8.12. In view of the EP Application being squarely related to either
software or software applications or computer program per se or
business methods, the Subject Application is directly hit by
Section 3(k) of the Act and hence, the Respondent had rightly
refused the same vide Impugned Orders I and II.
8.13. The Subject Application suffers from the infirmity of non-
sufficient disclosure. The Subject Application is silent on the
aspect of manner and quantity basis of colour differentiation
deployed in the present invention’s working. The Subject
Application attempts to demonstrate an already known technicalSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 15 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
effect of macro-scale (colour differentiation in desktop
computers and laptops / tablets) on a mobile phone (micro-scale)
which does not qualify as an invention under the Indian Patent
Law.
8.14. The Subject Application does not qualify as an invention, since
the said concept functions purely on the basis of a micro-
processor that runs on a software and represents an algorithmic
output that is not patentable under Section 3(k) of the Act,
besides having been known was already existing in
implementable and executable forms in desktop computer
systems, palmtops, laptops, tablets etc., available in public
domain on the determining priority date.
8.15. Reliance was placed upon the following decisions:
a. Vincent Panikurlangara v. Union of India & Others,
(1987) 2 SCC 165, wherein the Court held that the
technical matters which arise for consideration in a matter
of scientific / technical type cannot be effectively handled
by a Court. Similarly, the question of policy which is
involved in the matter is also one for the Union
Government to decide. No final say in regard to such
aspects come under the purview of the Court.
b. Dr. Shivarap Shantaram Wagle & Others v. Union of
India & Others, (1988) 2 SCC 115, wherein the Court
relying upon decision in Vincent Panikurlangara (supra)
held that a judicial proceeding of the nature initiated is not
an appropriate one for determination of such matters and
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 16 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
reiterated the view taken in Vincent Panikurlangara
(supra) that matters relating to highly specialized
scientific and technical field not amenable to judicial
intervention / judicial review.
c. Blackberry Limited v. Assistant Controller of Patents
and Designs, Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:6571 wherein
the Court held that the computer programs per se are not
patentable in Indian context. An outcome of sequence of
instructions dependent on an algorithmic mediated
process cannot be deemed to be an invention as per
Section 3(k) of the Act.
8.16. Accordingly, the Appeal is ought to be dismissed and the
Impugned Orders are liable to be upheld.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
THE INVENTION
9. The present invention is titled as “COLOUR DIFFERENTIATING A
PORTION OF A TEXT MESSAGE SHOWN IN A LISTING ON A
HANDHELD COMMUNICATION DEVICE”. The present invention pertains
to communication devices equipped with wireless communication
capabilities, along with the networks in which such devices function and
further addresses a colour-differentiating of e-mail messages based upon a
characteristic common to other received messages. The “Field” of the
present invention is reproduced hereunder:
“[0001] This disclosure, in a broad sense, is directed toward a
handheld communication device that has wireless communication
capabilities and the networks within which the wireless
communication device operates. The present disclosure furtherSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 17 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
relates to color-differentiating an email message based upon a
characteristic common to other received email messages.”
10. While sending and receiving e-mails, many users put filters on their
desktops to prioritize or to sort through their incoming and / or outgoing
messages but users may not implement filters on the messages sent to and
from the handheld communication device e-mail software. Therefore, the
need for a convenient way to differentiate the intended recipient / sender of
an e-mail message was needed. The relevant paragraph from the
“Background” of the Complete Specification is reproduced hereunder:
“With the proliferation of wireless communication systems,
compatible handheld communication devices are becoming more
prevalent, as well as advanced. Whereas in the past such handheld
communication devices were typically limited to either voice
transmission (cell phones) or text transmission (pagers and PDAs),
today’s consumer often demands a multifunctional device capable of
performing both types of transmissions, including even sending and
receiving e-mail. Furthermore, these higher-performance devices
can also be capable of sending and receiving other types of data
including that which allows the viewing and use of Internet websites.
These higher level functionalities necessarily require greater user
interaction with the devices through included user interfaces (Uls)
which may have originally been designed to accommodate making
and receiving telephone calls and sending messages over a related
Short Messaging Service (SMS). As might be expected, suppliers of
such mobile communication devices and the related service
providers are anxious to meet these customer requirements, but the
demands of these more advanced functionalities have in many
circumstances rendered the traditional user interfaces
unsatisfactory, a situation that has caused designers to have to
improve the UIs through which users input information and control
these sophisticated operations.”
11. An example of handheld electronic device (300) is shown in Figure
No. 1. As illustrated in Figure No. l, the handheld communication device
(300) comprises a lit display (322) located above a keyboard (332)
constituting a user input and suitable for accommodating textual input to the
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 18 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
handheld communication device (300). The front face (370) of the device
has a navigation row (370) and a key field (650) that includes alpha-numeric
keys (630), alphabetic keys (632), numeric keys (42), and other function
keys as shown in Figure No. 1. Figure No. 1 is reproduced hereunder:
12. An example of the device’s cooperation in a wireless network (319) is
provided in Figure No. 2. The detailed description of the Complete
Specification of the Subject Application states that these figures are
exemplary and those PSITA will appreciate the additional elements /
modifications which are necessary to make the device work. As shown in the
block diagram of Figure No. 2, the device (300) includes a micro-processor
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 19 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
(338) that controls the operation of the device (300). Figure No. 2 is
reproduced hereunder:
13. The Complete Specification of the Subject Application under
Paragraph No. [0026] notes that keys, typically of a push-button / push-pad
nature, perform well as data entry devices. However, it encounters the
problem to the user when they must also be used to effect navigational
control over a screen-cursor. To address this challenge, the present handheld
electronic device includes an auxiliary input which acts as a cursor
navigational tool and is also exteriorly located upon the front face (370) of
the device (300) as shown in Figure No. 7. The front face location is
specifically advantageous because it makes the tool easily thumb-acutable
like the keyboard’s key. As per the Complete Specification of the Subject
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 20 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
Application, a particularly usable embodiment provides the navigational tool
as a trackball (321) which can easily be utilized to instruct two-dimensional
screen cursor movement in substantially any direction, as well as act as an
actuator when the trackball (321) is depressed like a button. The relevant
paragraph of the Complete Specification of the Subject Application is
reproduced hereunder:
“[0026] Keys, typically of a push-button or push-pad nature,
perform well as data entry devices but present problems to the user
when they must also be used to effect navigational control over a
screen-cursor. In order to solve this problem the present handheld
electronic device 300 preferably includes an auxiliary input that acts
as a cursor navigational tool and which is also exteriorly located
upon the front face 370 of the device 300. Its front face location is
particularly advantageous because it makes the tool easily thumb-
actuable like the keys of the keyboard. A particularly usable
embodiment provides the navigational too in the form of a trackball
321 which is easily utilized to instruct two-dimensional screen
cursor movement in substantially any direction, as well as act as an
actuator when the trackball 321 is depressed like a button. The
placement of the navigation tool is preferably above the keyboard
332j and below the display screen 322; here, it avoids interference
during keyboarding and does not block the user’s view of the display
screen 322 during use. (See FIG. 1).”
14. Figure No. 7 of the Complete Specification of the Subject Application
is reproduced hereunder:
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 21 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
THE IMPUGNED ORDER II
Objection on the ground of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of
the Act
15. The Impugned Order II notes that the colour coding in Subject
Application is done through an algorithm and the algorithm uses message
address characteristic. In D1 also the algorithm uses message attributes for
the purpose of categorization. The Impugned Order II further notes that the
difference is in the designs of algorithms and therefore, in the outcome
which the Subject Application is categorizing the message for approved and
unapproved categories whereas D1 categorizes for urgent, family and
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 22 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
professional acquaintance categories. The relevant paragraphs of the
Impugned Order II are reproduced hereunder:
“8. Conclusion regarding inventiveness U/S 2(1)(j):
With regard to the cited documents, my observation is as follows:
The method of D1 comprises applying an identifying style to a
message received by the mobile communication device in
accordance with a message attribute associated with the message,
wherein the message attribute identifies a category to which the
message belongs. The message categories, as defined in para
[0034] of Dl, are – Urgent, family and Professional acquaintance.
D2 describes a system in which a user receives an alert including a
list of addresses before each email is sent. A user of the system must
then mark a confirmation box associated with each of the addresses
in the list. Obviously this marking is done to avoid the unintended
recipientsNow it can easily be decided that the underlying problem of instant
application and D2 is same that is of avoiding unintended
recipients; however both addressing this in different ways.
In instant case this problem is being addressed by color coding on
the basis of message address characteristic.
In written submission Applicant’s attorney argued that “Further, Dl,
in particular the paragraphs {0012}-{0017} cited in the notice,
disclose the application of visual identifying styles to messages.
Paragraph [0038) of D1 specify that visual identifying styles are
applied to one or more segments of received messages e.g. body,
title etc. It does not, however, teach disclose or even suggest the
application of any visual identification styles to the recipients of
messages which have been sent or are yet to be sent.
Therefore, it is incorrect to suggest that the only difference between
the teaching of D1 and the instant invention is the application of the
categorizing feature in D1 is at the time of receipt of the message
whereas in the instant invention it is at the time of sending the
message.
Additionally, it is pertinent to note that subject matter upon which
such color-coding categorizing feature is applied is name of the
recipient before sending in the instant invention, as opposed to the
message itself after receipt in D1.
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 23 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
The above reasoning of attorney is for novelty of the instant subject
matter .However, the Application was refused for being obvious for
skilled person in view of D1-D2.
The color coding in instant application is being done through an
algorithm. The algorithm uses message address characteristic. In
D1 also algorithm using message attributes for categorising
purpose. The difference is in the designs of algorithms and
therefore in outcome that is the instant application categorising
the message for approved and unapproved categories whereas D1
categorises for Urgent, family and Professional acquaintance
categories.
However the difference in algorithms is superficial and obvious for
skilled person once a skilled person view the problem of D2 with the
solution proposed in D1.A skilled person can instantly decide that
necessary changes can be made in the algorithm of D1 to create
categories of approved and unapproved recipients using message
attributes.
Therefore I am still of the opinion that the instant subject matter is
obvious for skilled person in view of D1 and D2 and does not
constitute an invention.
Emphasis supplied”
16. Further, the prior arts cited by the learned Controller to examine the
analysis under objection of lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(j) of
the Act are discussed as under:
PRIOR ART D1
17. Dl is titled as “MESSAGE RECOGNITION AND DISPLAY SYSTEM
AND METHOD FOR A MOBILE COMMUNICATION DEVICE”. D1
pertains to a system designed to detect when an electronic message is being
initiated for transmission. Before sending, the user receives a notification /
warning indicating that the message is about to be sent. This alert presents a
list of all intended recipients, incorporating any available aliases for easy
identification. Thereafter, the sender can review and confirm the accuracy of
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 24 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
the recipient list, and can modify / remove / cancel the message entirely.
Additionally, the system is also capable of alerting the user in case an
unauthorized message is being sent by the computer and provides the user
with the ability to delete such messages before they are transmitted. The
“Abstract” of D1 is reproduced hereunder:
“A system that monitors for an initiation of the sending of an
electronic message. The user is alerted or warned that the message
is about to be sent. The alert includes a list of the addressees of the
message. The list includes addressee aliases where available. The
sender can then verify that the addressees are correct and change or
delete those on the list, or erase the message. The system also
provides such an alert when a computer initiates the sending of an
unauthorized message and allows the user to delete the
unauthorized message.”
The relevant Paragraph Nos. [0011] to [0017] of D2 are reproduced
hereunder:
“[0011] In an alternative embodiment, the display shows
contents of Ille individual messages in various message-notification
bands across the display. The bands visually differ based on
intended recipients of the individual messages. The bands differ by
color or graphic pattern for messages intended for different users.
[0012] In the illustrative embodiment, a third mechanism
senses when someone enters a room in which the system is installed
and provides an enable signal in response thereto to the display. A
fifth mechanism automatically activates the display based on the
enable signal. The sensor includes a motion sensor and/or a light
sensor.
[0013] The novel design of the present invention is facilitated
by the second mechanism, which enables users of the convergence
device to quickly and efficiently determine if a message is waiting
for them by viewing the display. The display includes message
notifications for different users that are displayed in different colors
or patterns, which are pre-assigned to the different users. Users may
efficiently access the full message content by selecting the
personalized message notification on the display via a keyboard,
mouse, touch screen or other input device. Alternatively, users maySignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 25 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
watch as the message content scrolls across the message notification
on the display.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0014] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an efficient
communications system employing a convergence device with an
efficient message-notification display constructed in accordance
with the teachings of the present invention.
[0015] FIG. 2 is a flow diagram of a method employed by the
convergence device of FIG. 1 for conveniently simultaneously
notifying individual users that one or more messages are waiting
and displaying content of the pending messages.
DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[0016] While the present invention is described herein with
reference to illustrative embodiments for particular applications, it
should be understood that the invention is not limited thereto. Those
having ordinary skill in the art and access to the teachings provided
herein will recognize additional modifications, applications, and
embodiments within the scope thereof and additional fields in which
the present invention would be of significant utility.
[0017] FIG. 1 is a block diagram of an efficient
communications system 10 that includes a convergence device 12
with an efficient message-notification display constructed in
accordance with the teachings of the present invention. For clarity,
various well-known components, such as computer operating
systems, bard drives, power supplies, and so on, have been omitted
from FIG. 1. However, those skilled in the art with access to the
present teachings will know which components lo implement and
how to implement them to meet the needs of a given application.”
18. Claim No. 10 of D1 claims that the message characteristics /attributes
of the Subject Application i.e., a host name, domain name. Claim No. 10 is
reproduced hereunder:
“10. The method of claim 9, wherein the message attribute
comprises at least one of an identifier, a flag, an origination source,
a source number, and a keyword.”
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 26 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
19. The learned Counsel for the Respondent has relied on Paragraph
No. 10 of D1 to submit that D1 lends credible critical weight to
demonstrating the prior existence of the present invention.
PRIOR ART D2
20. D2 is titled as “EMAIL CLIENT APPLICATION INCORPORATING
AN ACTIVE TRANSMIT AUTHORIZATION REQUEST” is a US patent
granted on 30.12.2003. The claimed invention under D2 pertains to a system
monitoring for an initiation of the sending of an electronic message. Under
the said invention, the user is alerted that the message is about to be sent,
wherein the said alert includes a list of the addressees of the message. The
list includes addressee aliases where available. Thereafter, the sender can
verify the correctness of addressees and change / delete those on the list /
erase the message. The “Abstract” of D2 reproduced hereunder:
“A system that monitors for an initiation of the sending of an
electronic message. The user is alerted or warned that the message
is about to be sent. The alert includes a list of the addressees of the
message. The list includes addressee aliases where available. The
sender can then verify that the addressees are correct and change or
delete those on the list, or erase the message. The system also
provides such an alert when a computer initiates the sending of an
unauthorized message and allows the user to delete the
unauthorized message.”
21. The learned Counsel for the Respondent relied upon the snapshot
view of D2 lending credible critical weight to demonstrating the prior
existence of the present invention in the Subject Application.
22. The similarity between D2 and the Subject Application is that both
the inventions pertain to avoiding the wrong recipients.
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 27 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
PRIOR ART D3
23. D3 is titled as “EFFICIENT MESSAGE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM
AND METHOD FOR COMMUNICATION DEVICES” granted on
01.05.2003.
24. D3 discloses a system for facilitating message notification for an
electronic communication and communication device. The system under D3
includes a first mechanism which organizes, by an individual user,
individual messages received by the electronic communications device and
in response, provides a signal.
25. Further, the second mechanism allows the individual users to visually
differentiate their received message based on the signal. The second
mechanism, under a specific embodiment, includes a display for showing
contents of the individual messages in various visually distinguishable
formats corresponding to different individual users.
26. A further additional mechanism under D3 covers the individual
messages into text messages and scrolls the text messages through the text
which differs by colour / font for various individual users. Alternatively, the
display also presents individual message contents within distinct notification
bands, differentiated by colour / graphic pattern based on the intended
recipient.
27. The learned Controller cited D3 in their Written Submissions filed in
the present Appeal though D3 was not cited in the Impugned Orders.
However, D3 was cited in Hearing Notice I along with D1 and D2 and not in
Hearing Notice II.
28. In the Subject Application, the colour coding is being done through an
algorithm, wherein the algorithm uses message address characteristic such
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 28 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
as a host name, domain name etc. in order to differentiate between
recipients. In D1, the algorithm uses message characteristic attributes such
as identifier, flag, origination source, and a keyword etc.
29. The subject matter is name of the recipient on which the colour
coding categorizing feature is applied before sending in the Subject
Application. Under D1, it applied to the message itself after receipt. In other
words, the use of message characteristics in algorithms in order to create the
categorizing features is similar in D1 and the present invention under the
Subject Application.
30. D2, like the Subject Application, the invention pertains to avoiding
the wrong recipients. D3, under a specific embodiment, includes a display
for showing contents of the individual messages in various visually
distinguishable formats corresponding to different individual users.
31. In the light of the disclosures in D1 and D2 along with the teaching of
D3, which discloses the individual messages content in various visually
distinguishable formats corresponding to different individual users, the
present invention lacks inventive step. The disclosures in D1 to D3 renders
the present invention obvious.
32. Therefore, the present invention under the Subject Application lacks
inventive step.
Objection on the ground of non-patentability under Section 3(k) of the Act
33. The Impugned Order II notes that the problem indicated in the Subject
Application is not related to the performance of existing hardware and the
solution proposed in the present invention is not impacting performance of
existing hardware as the algorithm is only related to colour coding on the
basis of message characteristic and is unrelated to the performance of the
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 29 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
existing hardware. The Impugned Order II further states that the feature
“differentiating between recipients and notifying the sender of the message
before the message is sent” is not of technical nature.
34. Describing the “Technical Problem”, the Impugned Order II states
that a technical problem is universal in nature and technicality does not
change person to person on the other hand, since the error in sending a
message with respect to recipient depends on person sending the message, it
cannot be considered a technical problem.
35. The Impugned Order II further notes that the said feature is just
managing the address book in order to avoid the errors and therefore, can be
called a data management style. Under the said objection, the learned
Controller noted that the limitations recited in the claims of the Subject
Application are all software limitations defining the procedure that should
be followed through the execution of specific commands. Therefore, the
learned Controller held that it is, therefore, derived that the actual
contribution of the present invention solely lies in computer program /
algorithm as such. The relevant paragraphs of the Impugned Order II are
reproduced hereunder:
“The claimed subject-matter accordingly provides a method for
differentiating between recipients of a message and notifying the
sender of the message by color-coding a name of a recipient
associated with the message address of the message, based on the
identified message address characteristic.
Applicant’s attorney argued that “present method results in an
improvement and has technical advancement which affects a change
in the functionality/ performance of existing hardware and is
capable of bringing technical effect having real-world application.”
This argument cannot be accepted as the problem indicated in
instant subject matter is not related to the performance of existing
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 30 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
hardware and anyway the solution proposed is not impacting
performance of existing hardware because the algorithm is only
related to color coding on the basis of message characteristic and
not related to the performance of the existing hardware. Hardware
will execute this algorithm in the same way it executing other
algorithms.
The alleged feature “differentiating between recipients and
notifying the sender of the message before the message is sent”
itself is not of technical nature.
The method proposed in Instant application may provide comfort
and convenience in managing address book but it is not technical in
nature.
A technical problem is universal in nature and technicality is not
varied person to person. For example noise in a communication
system . Here every person faces the same noise problem if using the
same communication system. But error in sending a message with
respect to recipient cannot be considered a technical problem
because it depends on person sending the message. It is not
guaranteed that the said error committed by a person shall also be
committed by another person.
Therefore I am still of the opinion that the subject matter of the
alleged invention lies in various software implemented non technical
processes like associating color, accepting message address,
examining message address, displaying message information etc.
One of the major alleged inventive features of instant subject matter
is color coding with intended recipient ;this features is not a
technical feature .This is just managing the address book to avoid
errors ;therefore can be called a data management style. Moreover,
the limitations recited in the claims are all software limitations
defining the procedure that should be followed through the
execution of specific commands. It is therefore derived that the
actual contribution of the invention solely lies in computer
program/algorithm as such. The only hardware which is disclosed is
the wireless communication device; which is just a mobile terminal
device; that executes program in a conventional or normal manner
devoid from any interaction beyond the normal hardware-software
interaction. Further, the problem is being addressed relates to an
administrative/business solution for data management. The subjectSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 31 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
matter is administrative and non-technical in nature pertaining to
business needs/motives. Therefore, the subject matter of claims 1-14
relates to “computer program per se” or “algorithm” and falls
within scope of section 3(k) of The Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).
10. The oral argument and the written submission of the agent of the
applicant have been carefully considered. However, without
prejudice, although the hearing submissions have attempted to
address the other requirements, yet the substantive requirements of
the Patents Act, 1970 i.e. requirements of section 2(1)(j) and section
3(k) are not found complied with. Therefore, in view of the
aforementioned reasons and unmet requirements, this instant
application is not found in order for grant.
11. Therefore, keeping in view the above facts, the submissions of the
agents during hearing and subsequently through the written
submissions, as well as the outstanding official requirements, instant
application no. 1976/DEL/2008 DATED 20/08/2008 does not
comply with the requirements of The Patents Act, 1970 (as
amended). I, therefore, hereby order that the grant of a patent for
application no. 1976/DEL/2008 is REFUSED under the provisions
of Section 15 of The Patents Act, 1970 (as amended).
Emphasis supplied”
36. Section 3(k) of the Act explicitly excludes “a mathematical or
business method or a computer program per se or algorithms” from
patentability in India. The Appellant claims that recipient colour coding,
enterprise integration and push notifications rely on algorithmic rules as well
as software-based methods of processing, transmitting information or
displaying.
37. Section 3(k) of the Act is reproduced hereunder:
“3. What are not inventions.–The following are not inventions
within the meaning of this Act,–
(k) a mathematical or business method or a computer programme
per se or algorithms;”
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 32 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
38. Section 3(k) of the Act requires that any computer-implemented
invention must demonstrate a clear “technical effect” or “technical
contribution” which is beyond the abstract logic of a program. Such
“technical effect” or “technical contribution” is absent in the subject matter
of the present invention.
39. In Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC, One Microsoft Way v.
Assistant Controller of Patents, Patent Office, 2024 SCC OnLine Mad
2785, it is held that even when the invention in question relates to a CRI, if
it results in a technical effect which improves the functioning of the system
and efficacy (effect on hardware), or provides a technical solution to a
technical problem discussed in the complete specification, the impact of the
claimed invention is not limited to a particular application / data set, and
therefore, it overcomes the exclusion. The relevant paragraphs of the
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC, One Microsoft Way (supra) are
reproduced hereunder:
“36. Thus, even when the claimed invention relates to a CRI, if it
results in a technical effect that improves the system’s functioning
and efficacy (effect on hardware), or provides a technical solution to
a technical problem and is, therefore, not limited in its impact to a
particular application or data set, it would surmount the exclusion
under section 3(k) of the Patents Act.
Claimed invention and Section 3(k)
37. As the independent claim recites, the claimed invention
processes commands to multiple unrelated applications by
associating the command surface to more than one component
registered to receive commands from the command surface. The
command lists are identified by the command surface by polling the
components first and each command on the list is associated with
the respective component. This enables the outflow of commands to
unrelated applications from a single command surface removing the
necessity of multiple command surfaces. This technical contribution
makes the claimed invention efficacious over conventional systemsSignature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 33 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
which require the presence of multiple command surfaces on the web
page for processing unrelated applications. Thus, the claimed
commanding system is more than a set of instructions in code or any
other language and is not limited in impact to a particular
application or data set, i.e. it is application/data set agnostic. Put
differently, it possesses a ‘technical effect’ that enhances the system’s
functionality by processing multiple unrelated applications using the
same command surface. This eliminates the need for multiple
command surfaces, reduces the use of memory space in the system
and augments efficiency. As a result, it is patent-eligible under
Section 3(k) of the Patents Act. The respondent also concluded that
the claimed invention fails to address ‘enablement’. This is not a
relevant consideration under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act and,
therefore, is not a valid ground for rejection under the said
provision. Having concluded that the claimed invention is not
excluded from patent eligibility, it remains to be considered if the
claimed invention would be obvious to the PSITA.”
40. The present invention pertains to address the problem of inefficiency
of conventional systems to process more than one different unrelated
applications simultaneously because each component includes its
independent command surface in order to process the respective application.
41. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that to solve the
identified problem, the present invention provides a system and method in
which the command surface is coupled to more than one component on a
page, even when the components are associated with different applications
that leads to directing the command to more than one application for
processing. The learned Counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the
system efficiency is increased when a large number of unrelated applications
are processed by utilizing / sharing the same command surface.
42. The learned Controller held that the command lists are identified by
the command surface by polling the components first and each command on
the list is associated with the respective component and this results in the
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 34 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
enablement of the outflow of commands to unrelated applications from a
single command surface thereby removing the necessity of multiple
command surfaces.
43. The learned Controller further held that this technical contribution
makes the present invention efficacious compared to the conventional
systems which require the presence of multiple command surfaces on the
web page to process unrelated applications.
44. The “technical effect” that enhances the system’s functionality by
processing multiple unrelated applications using the same command surface.
As a result, the need for multiple command surfaces is eliminated, and the
use of memory space in the system is reduced and thereby results in the
improvement in the overall system efficiency.
45. Since the algorithm in the present invention claimed under the Subject
Application is only related to colour coding on the basis of message
characteristic and not enhancing the systems functionality, it does not
possess a “technical effect” or “technical contribution”. The present
invention relates to CRI, but does not result in a “technical effect” that
improves the systems functionality and efficacy at the hardware level. The
“technical effect” that can be possibly considered is the improved reliability.
However, reliability increase should be intrinsic to the computer that is an
improvement in the machine itself, which is not the case here. Accordingly,
in the present invention, there is no such “technical effect” enhancing the
system’s functionality.
46. The feature of the present invention of differentiating between
recipients and notifying the sender of the message before the message is sent
is not of technical nature, thereby fails to provide a technical solution. An
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 35 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
error in sending a message to a recipient cannot be considered a technical
problem as it depends on the person sending the message. The problem that
the present invention under the Subject Application solves is in itself not a
technical problem.
47. Even after the present invention is implemented, the sender still may
commit an error, if the recipients having the same name are more in number.
For example, if the recipients having same name are five in number, the user
shall have to remember the all five different colours corresponding to five
different recipients. In this case, the sender still may commit the same error,
if failed to remember the assigned colours. The Impugned Order II rightly
states that a technical problem is universal in nature and technicality is not
varied person to person and an error in sending a message with respect to the
recipient cannot be considered a technical problem as it depends on the
person sending the message.
48. Therefore, the present invention under the Subject Application is not
patentable under Section 3(k) of the Act. Accordingly, there is no infirmity
with the Impugned Orders and no interference is warranted in the present
Appeal.
CONCLUSION
49. In view of the above analysis, the present Appeal is dismissed and the
Impugned Orders are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
APRIL 30, 2026
‘KC’ / ‘N’
Signature Not Verified C.A.(COMM.IPD-PAT) 14/2022 Page 36 of 36
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
20:45:38
