Mere Arrangement or Re-arrangement

1A mere arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices each functioning independently of one another in a known way cannot be the subject matter of a patent. (See Standipack Private Ltd v Oswal Trading Co Ltd (1999) 19 PTC 479 (Del).) A mere collocation will not qualify as an inventive step. (Sabaf SPA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd (2005) RPC 10 (HL).) On the issue of collocation, Lord Tomlin had remarked in British Celanese Ltd v Courtaulds Ltd: ((1935) 52 RPC 171, p 193 (HL).)

a mere placing side by side of old integers so that each performs its own proper function independently of any of the others is not a patentable combination, but that where the old integers when placed together have some working inter-relation producing a new or improved result then there is patentable subject-matter in the idea of a working interrelation brought about by the collocation of the integers. (Cited in Sabaf SPA v MFI Furniture Centres Ltd (2005) RPC 10 (HL).)

2In Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam v Hindustan Metal Industries (para 50) the Supreme Court held that the patented machine is merely an application of an old invention, known for decades before 1951, and used for the traditional purpose of scraping and turning utensils. There was only a slight change in the mode of application, which was held to be no more than a workshop improvement. Similarly, the application of known articles to an analogous purpose, the mere collection of more than one integer not involving the exercise of any inventive faculty, etc do not qualify for the grant of a patent. (Polar Industries Ltd v Jay Engineering Works Ltd 1989 PTC (2) Suppl 310 (Cal); Rampratap v Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (1976) IPLR 28, p 35.)

3A new combination of well known devices and its application to a new and useful purpose may be the subject matter of a patent. (Canadian General Electric Co Ltd v Fada Radio Ltd AIR 1930 PC 1, pp 2-3.) Applying the test set out in earlier decisions, Jayasimha Babu J has summed up the eligibility criteria in such cases:

…the product patented by the plaintiff, though when dissected and as part taken separately may not show inventiveness, a combination of the same, and the fact that a new use has been discovered for a combination of known integers, and the further fact that inventive steps by way of ingenuity and skill were required to be and have been displayed in bringing about such a combination and discovering the mode of application of known integers for a product, whose usefulness has been demonstrated by the large number of units … sold by the plaintiffs… establish that the patent granted in favour of the plaintiffs cannot be regarded prima facie as invalid. (Gandhimati Appliances Ltd v L G Varadaraju (2000) 3 MLJ 85, pp 95-96 (DB).)

4Where an applicant combined one feature of an earlier specification with one feature of another existing specification to secure no advantage other than that addition of their respective merits, the alleged invention will be disallowed on the ground of obviousness. (See Re Slegten’s Application (Patent) (1957) RPC 419, p 425.)

5In Indian Vacuum Brake Co v E S Luard (1925), (p 5) on the evidence of “the simplicity of the respondent’s ball valve which has fewer parts the ball seat sing combined with the plug”, the Calcutta High Court held that it was not “enough to support a patent. Many cases are collected in Fletcher on Patents P. 39 where it is stated that patents for making in one piece, articles, previously made in two or more pieces, have generally been held invalid.”