dated August 21, 2015, the Controller General of Patents, Designs and
Trademarks released the latest guidelines for examination of patent
applications dealing with computer related inventions. The guidelines are
available here. This post is merely an update on this development. I hope to undertake an analysis of the Guidelines soon.
Paragraph 3 of the Guidelines contains definitions of algorithm, computer, computer network, computer programme, computer system, data, firmware, function, hardware, “per se“, software and a few more similar and relevant terms. Para 4.5 of the Guidelines deals with determination of excluded subject-matter in patent applications, with specific sub-heads separately dealing with determination of various categories of subject-matter excluded under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970. Extracted below are some of the relevant portions:
4.5 Determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs
Since patents are granted to inventions, whether products or processes, in all
fields of technology, it is important to ascertain from the nature of the
claimed CRI whether it is of a technical nature involving technical
advancement as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic
significance and is not subject to exclusion under Section 3 of the Patents Act.
The sub-section 3(k) excludes mathematical methods or business methods or
computer programme per se or algorithms from patentability. Computer
programmes are often claimed in the form of algorithms as method claims or
system claims with some „means‟ indicating the functions of flow charts or
process steps. 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.
What is important is to judge the substance of claims taking whole of the
claim together. If the claims in any form such as method/process,
apparatus/system/device, computer program product/ computer readable
medium fall under the said excluded categories, they would not be patentable. However, if in substance, the claims, taken as whole, do not fall
in any of the excluded category, the patent should not be denied.
4.5.4 Claims directed at Computer Programme per se:
The computer
programme per se is excluded from patentability under section 3 (k) apart
from mathematical or business method and algorithm. Claims which are
directed towards computer programs per se are excluded from patentability,
like
(i) Claims directed at computer programmes/ set of instructions/ Routines
and/or Sub-routines written in a specific language
(ii) Claims directed at “computer programme products” / “Storage Medium
having instructions” / “Database” / “Computer Memory with instruction”
i.e. computer programmes per se stored in a computer readable medium
The legislative intent to attach suffix per se to computer programme is
evident by the following view expressed by the Joint Parliamentary
Committee while introducing Patents (Amendments) Act, 2002:
“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, ancillary
thereto or developed thereon. The intention here is not to reject them
for grant of patent if they are inventions. However, the computer
programmes as such are not intended to be granted patent. This
amendment has been proposed to clarify the purpose.”
The JPC report holds that the computer programmes as such are not
intended to be granted patent. It uses the phrase “ … certain other things,
ancillary thereto or developed thereon…..”. The term “ancillary” indicates
something essential to give effect to the main subject. In respect of CRIs,
the term “ancillary thereto” would mean the “things” which are essential to
give effect to the computer programme. The clause “developed thereon” in
the JPC report may be understood as any improvement or technical
advancement achieved by such development. 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.