Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.3. The formulation of IN 2243/MUM/2014 is materially different from the formulation of the claimed invention not only because different classes of excipients are used, but also because IN 2243/MUM/2014 requires https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm ) the use of excipients that remain as insoluble solid particles. By contrast, the EC formulation does not include any insoluble solid particles and, therefore, does not require suspending or dispersing agents. In spite of providing two affidavits from Mr.G.N.Kendapa and Mr.Vairamani Ramanathan to clarify aspects of the claimed invention, including to highlight that EC formulations cannot contain insoluble particles like silica or China clay, these aspects were not addressed in the impugned order.

5. Mr.A.R.Sakthivel raised several contentions on behalf of the first respondent in support of his request to affirm the impugned order. His contentions may be summarised as under:

5.1. IN 2243/MUM/2014 (D3) was first filed on 9th July 2014, thereby pre-dating the instant application filed on 25th August 2014. The said document discloses the use of pendimethalin (20–50%) and metribuzin (1– 10%). The specified ranges completely overlap the ranges claimed in the present application [pendimethalin (25–52%) ; metribuzin (6–12%)]. The marginal difference of 2% in the upper limits is statistically and practically negligible and does not represent technical advancement. There is no specific enabling disclosure in the complete specification to demonstrate how the claimed excipients (solvents, co-solvents and surfactants) provide a distinct https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm ) and improved formulation as compared to D3.
5.6. The complete specification does not provide reproducible examples across the full scope of the claimed composition ranges or any explanation of the role played by the excipients in achieving enhanced homogeneity or stability.
6. The oral arguments of Mr.Shravan Kumar Bansal, on behalf of the second respondent, may be summarised as under:
18. The Pendimethalin and Metribuzin combination is known in the art. Different proportion of said active substances where workable and improved results producing proportion is also known in the art. The object of the present applicant as stated in the application is to provide a homogeneous, stable, premixed with an enhanced herbicidal effectiveness on wheat, barley, soyabeen and potatoes which results in good yield. D1 disclosed combinations of pendimethalin and metribuzin incorporated by sowing (IBS) were more effective for bromegrass control than either of the components used alone in 10 of 15 cases. Pendimethalin .594 Kg/ha + metribuzin 100 Kg/ha and pendimethalin .660 Kg/ha + metribuzin .200 Kg/ha resulted in the greatest reduction in bromegrass numbers. D1 discloses the workable proportion 49.5:15, 59.4:10 and 33:10. D2 disclosed that the highest efficacy were attained by the combination of metribuzin + pendimethalin (88.1). The applicant failed to provide comparative experiment with data for the effect of excipients in the pre-mix composition comprising pendimethalin and metribuzin of the present invention with https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm ) the same concentration of avtive ingredientstank mix or same concentration without any excipient in Table 1 and Table 2. Table 1 and 2 provided for the effect of the herbicides Pendimethalin 40% and Metribuzin 9% on the growth of the wheat crop and on weed count at different intervals after application with same concentration could not provided any to understand the surprising effect of the premix composition and data provided in the table. Comparing pre-mix composition (pendimethalin 40% and metribuzin 9%) of the present invention with different tank mix composition (pendimethalin 30% and metribuzin 70%) is unscientific and it is not clear how the 40% and 30% pendimethalin in combination with 9% and 70% metribuzin respectively expected to produce similar activity, such a comparison cannot be considered as improved effect. There is no support in the specification for the homogeneous, stable and an enhanced herbicidal activity. In the absence of any support in the specification the claimed result achieved is considered as a mere statement without any improvement in the work. It appears that the applicant submitted with certain formulation with permutation and combination, where such a combinations proved as a suitable combination for achieving more efficacious effect as per the prior art. For claiming any specific pre-mix combination, there must be a comparative study with the tank mix combination having same concentration of active ingredient. Different https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 01:45:03 pm ) concentration of active ingredients in pre-mix and tank mix produce different results, such a comparison cannot be acceptable and considered as unscientific. Pendimethalin and metribuzin is a preferred combination in the prior art D1 and D2. Excipients used in the premix composition are also known for using premix combination. Person skilled in the art motivated with the teaching and suggestion in the prior art for preparing different workable range of pendimethalin and metribuzin combination with expcipients which are routinely used for preparing premix composition. Preparing certain composition which is already suggested in the prior art D1 and D2 along with routinely used excipients for preparing premix composition is obvious to the person skilled in the art unless such a combination exhibits improved effect. Thus claims of the impugned application do not involve inventive step and there is no technical advancement u/s 25(1)(e) of the Act."