Shen Dian Enterprise Ltd v ARK Corporation Pty Ltd - [2020] APO 11

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Shen Dian Enterprise Ltd v ARK Corporation Pty Ltd [2020] APO 11

Patent Application: 2011205034

Title:Charging Apparatus and Portable Power Supply

Patent Applicant:                   ARK Corporation Pty Ltd
Opponent:  Shen Dian Enterprise Ltd
Delegate:  R Subbarayan
Decision Date:  19 February 2020
Hearing Date:  Written submissions filed on 27 September 2019

Catchwords: PATENTS – section 59 – final determination – amendments overcome deficiencies identified in previous decision – application to proceed to grant

Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: Ian Lester of Foundry Intellectual Property Pty Ltd
Patent attorney for the opponent: Spruson & Ferguson

IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2011205034

Title:Charging Apparatus and Portable Power Supply

Patent Applicant: ARK Corporation Pty Ltd
Date of Decision: 19 February 2020
DECISION
The amendments to the specification overcome the deficiencies identified in the first decision in this s59 opposition and do not introduce new deficiencies.

Subject to an appeal of this decision, I direct the application proceed to grant.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND

Patent application 2011205034 in the name of ARK Corporation Pty Ltd (the Applicant) was filed on 27 July 2011. It claims an earlier priority date of 27 July 2010 from Australian provisional application 2010903353. Following examination, it was advertised as accepted on 24 December 2015. A notice of opposition to the grant of the patent was filed on 23 March 2016 by Supercheap Auto Pty Ltd. Following a request dated 1 August 2016 from Shen Dian Enterprises Ltd, the Notice of Opposition was amended to record the opponent as Shen Dian Enterprises Ltd (the Opponent). The applicant filed a set of proposed amendments on 15 May 2017 which were advertised as having been allowed on 4 January 2018. The matter was heard in Canberra on 12 April 2018 and I issued a decision on 21 December 2018[1] (the ‘First Decision’) in which I found that Claims 3 and 20 are not fairly based and that all the claims lack an inventive step. I afforded the applicant a period of two months from the date of that decision to propose amendments that would overcome these adverse findings. The applicant filed a set of proposed amendments on 21 February 2019. Although the opponent submitted in comments filed on 14 March 2019 that these amendments were not allowable under section 102(2)(a), the delegate considered them allowable and on 2 May 2019, the amendments were advertised as having been allowed.
[1] Shen Dian Enterprise Ltd v ARK Corporation Pty Ltd [2018] APO 92
The matter was then set for a final determination and the parties were asked whether they wished to be heard in this matter.
The applicant indicated that they wished to be heard before the opposition was finally determined and the hearing took place through written submissions which were filed on 27 September 2019.
The opponent did not wish to be heard and therefore did not file any written submissions. However, I note that in their written comments filed in relation to the proposed amendments to the specification, while commenting on the allowability of the amendments, they also filed comments in relation to the inventive step of the proposed claims. I have considered those comments in making this final determination.
APPLICABLE LAW
It is well established that the decision of a delegate in opposition proceedings determines the matter finally, subject to appeal (R v Smith (Commissioner of Patents); Ex parte Mole Engineering Pty Ltd, [1981] HCA 25; (1981) 147 CLR 340 at 348-349). There is no scope for the Commissioner to re-open or re-hear matters that had already been determined in the previous decision. Thus, in a final determination the only questions are whether the amendments to the specification overcome the deficiencies identified in the previous decision and whether the amendments introduce any new deficiencies. New deficiencies are grounds of opposition that arise solely from the amendment of the specification. That is, pre-existing deficiencies are excluded (Iluka Midwest Ltd v Technological Resources Pty Ltd, [2002] FCA 1233 at [34]).
THE FIRST HEARING AND DECISION
In the first decision, I found that independent claims 3 and 20 lacked fair basis and that all the claims lacked an inventive step over the combined disclosures of documents D5 and D14.
Independent claims 1, 3 and 20 were as follows:
1.A portable battery box for housing and charging a battery, the portable battery box including:
a housing including spaced-apart walls for receiving a battery for removable mounting therein and a lid for closing the housing;
a charging apparatus for charging the battery;
a display screen disposed on or in the walls or lid of the housing for displaying message or images thereon relating to the battery,
wherein the messages or images include one or more in the group consisting of time remaining to charge completion, time remaining to discharge completion, battery charge percentage, and
one or more user input selectors to select for input into a processing system a type of battery removably mounted in the housing, the messages or images differing depending on the battery type input to the processing system, the type of battery selected on the basis of its construction.
3. A method of monitoring a charging or discharging operation of a battery which in use is
removably disposed in a portable housing having opposed walls having an open top, and a lid for closing the open top, the method including the steps of:
receiving from one or more input selectors a battery type having a particular construction, relating to a selected battery for charging and/or discharging in the portable housing, into one or more computing processors;
measuring, by one or more computing processors, one or more measured battery charging and/or discharging parameters;
estimating one or more estimated charging and/or discharging parameters with one or more computing processors; and
displaying, with one or more computing processors, the measured and estimated charging and/or discharging parameters on a display screen mounted on or in the lid or walls of the portable housing, the display screen for displaying messages or images thereon relating to the measured and estimated charging and/or discharging parameters, wherein the measured and estimated charging and/or discharging parameters are selected from the group consisting of battery voltage, battery charge percentage, battery charging current, and battery discharging current.
20. A portable power supply suitable for housing different types of battery, the portable power supply comprising:
a housing having spaced-apart walls and an open top for receiving a battery;
a lid for closing the open top;
an inverter including a system for providing alternating current from the battery;
and a display screen disposed on or in the lid or walls of the housing, the display screen for displaying messages or images thereon relating to the battery;
wherein the messages or images on the display screen are selected from the group consisting of battery type, battery charge percentage, time remaining to discharge completion, and battery capacity in Ampere hours; and
one or more user input buttons for selecting the type of battery disposed within the housing, the display screen displaying differing messages or images depending on selection of the battery type.
THE AMENDMENTS
All three independent claims have been amended and the amended independent claims with the amendments highlighted read as follows (deletions are indicated by ~~strikethrough~~ and additions by underlining):
1. A portable battery box for housing and ~~charging~~ managing charging and discharging operations of a battery, the portable battery box including:
a housing including spaced-apart walls for receiving a battery for removable mounting therein and a lid for closing the housing;
a charging apparatus for charging the battery;
a display screen disposed on or in the walls or lid of the housing for displaying messages or images thereon relating to the battery,
wherein the messages or images include one or more in the group consisting of time remaining to charge completion, time remaining to discharge completion, battery charge percentage, and
one or more user input selectors to select for input into a processing system a type of battery removably mounted in the housing, the messages or images differing depending on the battery type input to the processing system, the type of battery selected on the basis of its construction,
wherein the processing system is configured to calculate net current flow to or from the battery to further facilitate the display of different messages or images on the display screen.
34. A method of monitoring a charging and or discharging operations of a battery which in use is removably disposed in a portable housing having opposed walls having an open top, and a lid for closing the open top, the method including the steps of:
providing a battery box for housing a battery, the battery box including spaced-apart walls for
receiving a battery for removable mounting therein, a lid for closing the housing and a charging apparatus for charging the battery;
receiving from one or more input selectors a battery type having a particular construction, relating to a selected battery for charging and/or discharging in the portable housing, into one or more computing processors;
measuring, by one or more computing processors, one or more measured battery charging
and/or discharging parameters;
calculating net current flow to or from the battery;
using the net current flow to estimateing one or more estimated charging and/or discharging parameters with one or more computing processors; and displaying, with one or more computing processors, the measured and estimated charging and/or discharging parameters on a display screen mounted on or in the lid or walls of the portable housing, the display screen for displaying messages or images thereon relating to the measured and estimated charging and/or discharging parameters, wherein the measured and estimated charging and/or discharging parameters are selected from the group consisting of ~~time to charge completionbattery voltage~~, battery charge percentage, , ~~battery charging current~~ time to discharge completion, and time to charge completion ~~battery discharging current~~.
2022. A portable power supply and charging station for managing the charge and discharge of a battery, the station being suitable for housing different types of battery, the portable power supply and charging station comprising:
a housing having spaced-apart walls and an open top for receiving a battery, the housing
including spaced-apart walls for receiving a battery for removable mounting therein, a lid for closing the housing, and a charging apparatus for charging the battery;
a computer processor configured to calculate the net current flow to or from the battery;
~~a lid for closing the open top;~~
one or more ~~an inverter including a system for providing alternating~~ power outlets for deploying current from the battery;
and a display screen disposed on or in the lid or walls of the housing, the display screen for displaying messages or images thereon relating to the battery;
wherein the messages or images on the display screen are selected from the group consisting of ~~battery type~~, battery charge percentage, time remaining to discharge completion, ~~and battery capacity in Ampere hours~~; and
one or more user input buttons for selecting the type of battery disposed within the housing,
the display screen displaying differing messages or images depending on selection of the
battery type and net current flow of the battery.
FAIR BASIS
In the first decision I found that claims 3 and 20 that require the display screen to be disposed on the lid or walls of the housing but do not also limit the charging apparatus and its processing system to be a part of the housing, travel beyond the matter disclosed in the body of the specification and were therefore not fairly based.
Amended independent claims 4 and 22 (which correspond to claims 3 and 20 respectively in the first decision) now clearly define the charging apparatus as being a part of the portable housing. I am therefore satisfied that these claims do not extend beyond the matter disclosed in the specification. These claims are now fairly based.
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
Each of the amended independent claims includes the following new features:
·The battery box or portable housing can manage/monitor the charging and discharging of a battery
·The processor is configured to calculate the net current flow to or from the battery
It is clear that the parties have differing views as to how the term “net current to or from the battery” is to be construed.
The opponent submitted that because of the word ‘or’ this term only requires that the processor to be able to calculate either (a) net current flow to the battery or (b) net current flow from the battery.
The applicant on the other hand submitted that the skilled addressee applying a common sense construction to this term in the context of the specification would understand that the use of the phrase ‘net current’ requires a comparison of the output flow from the battery with input flow into the battery and that this therefore cannot be construed in the manner submitted by the opponent.
I am inclined to agree with the applicant in this regard. The Macquarie Dictionary Online defines “Net” (when used as an adjective) as “ultimate; final; after all calculations have been made, or all additions and subtractions have had their effect”.
Applying this definition, it is clear that the term “net current flow” would refer to the current after all current flowing in and flowing out of the battery have been taken into account. It would not comprise only current flowing into the battery or only current flowing out of the battery as submitted by the opponent. Even if this is a possible construction, clearly there is then ambiguity as to what this term means. The skilled addressee would therefore have recourse to the specification to resolve this ambiguity. As pointed out by the applicant there are a number of references in the specification that clearly state that ‘net’ current is calculated by measuring the current flow into and the current flow from the battery. (page 11, line 15; page 14, lines 30 to 34; and page 15, lines 10 to 20).
In my view, the requirement in the independent claims for the processor to measure net current flow requires a determination of both the current flow into the battery and the current flow from the battery.
This construction is also consistent with the definition that the battery box manages both charging (net current flowing into battery) and discharging (net current flowing out of battery) operations.
INVENTIVE STEP
In the first decision, I found that all of the claims lack an inventive step in light of the combined disclosure of documents D5 and D14. My reasoning can be summarised as follows:
·The problem sought to be addressed by the claimed invention is two-fold, namely existing battery boxes (i) did not provide adequate information on the charging process and (ii) could not be used to charge batteries of different chemistries.
·D5 discloses a battery box 1 with a lid 6 for housing a battery 2, a battery recharger/conditioner 20, status indicators in the form of green and red LEDs 24, 25 to indicate whether the whether the charger is in a charging mode or a conditioning mode and a battery charge indicator with a user interface 31 and 4 LEDs. Each of the LEDs corresponds to a particular state of charge of the battery, namely quarter charge, half charge, three quarter charge and full charge. D5 also states that the LEDs can be supplemented with indicia on the vertical side of the lid, the indicia indicating the state of battery charge either graphically or numerically.
·D14 discloses that the Projecta Intelli-Charge battery charger is designed for use with all types of batteries including Gel, AGM, Wet and Calcium and that upon selecting the battery chemistry type, the charger will adjust the charge to precisely match the battery type. The charger’s performance can be controlled and monitored with a remote control display that includes an LCD display screen and four control buttons called “Volts Amps”, “Charge Rate”, “Battery Type” and “Recond”. The LCD display appears to show the type of battery and the battery charge level/percentage in the form of a battery image.
·Having ascertained both D5 and D14, it would have been straightforward for the PSA to realise that the battery charger housed within the battery box of D5 could be replaced with a multi-chemistry charger disclosed in D14 in order to solve the problem of not being able to charge batteries of different types in the one battery box.
·D5 also discloses that the lid is provided with battery charge indicators in the form of LEDs and that this can be supplemented with indicia that indicate the state of charge graphically or numerically. D14 discloses a display screen that can display information in relation to the type of battery that is input by the user and information relating to the charging process including voltage/current, the charging rate and level of battery charge. It would also therefore have been a matter of routine for the PSA to incorporate such a display instead of the LEDs and the numerical display of D5 in order to provide further useful information. Such a requirement to provide this further information would also become necessary when the charger is a multi-chemistry charger that uses different charging cycles for different battery types.
·While there is no explicit disclosure in D14 that the information provided on the display screen will differ depending on the type of battery, this is implicit given the different charging cycles required.
·While claim 1 defines different messages in a group, it only requires that the display screen displays information relating to at least one of the different parameters in the group. Both D5 and D14 display information about the battery charge levels/percentage.
·The display screen of D14 is fairly compact and could be quite easily incorporated in the lid or walls of the battery box of D5 and there is nothing in the specification that suggests that in incorporating a multi-chemistry charger and a display screen in the battery box, there were any practical difficulties that had to be overcome.
·Claim 1 therefore lacks an inventive step in light of the combined disclosure of documents D5 and D14.
·Independent claim 3 also lacks an inventive in light of these documents as the display is able to display at least battery voltage and battery charge percentage.
·Independent claim 20 also lacks an inventive step as the use of inverters to provide alternating current from a battery is CGK and where there was a need to provide an alternating current from the battery box, it would have been a matter of routine to include an inverter.
The opponent has submitted that the inclusion of the feature of calculating net current was obvious and therefore each of the independent claims are still lacking an inventive step over the combined disclosure of D5 and D14. The following is an extract from the comments filed on 14 March 2019.
“It is common general knowledge in the art that a very low resistance “sensor”, often referred to in the art as a shunt, can be readily used to determine the net current flow to and/or from a battery. Additionally, the inclusion of circuitry to measure net current flow to or from a battery were also commonly utilised in battery chargers as at the priority date of the present application (see, e.g., D13, D14, D15, D16 and D20).
By way of example, we refer to the PCS10 battery charger of D20, which as described in Mr Ke’s Evidence in Support (see paragraph 13) for the Opposition proceedings was released by his company in 2005. To this end, we refer to the below circuit diagram of the PCS10 battery charger of D20, with specific attention drawn to the top thereof, which demonstrates that net current flow to the battery is measured by way of a shunt and is subsequently sent to a display by the IC2C circuit. As would be appreciated by the skilled person, the present circuit is a relatively simple design by current standards in the art, but the underlying nature of the calculation of net current flow to or from a battery remains the same, as is well known in the art.
Further to the above, we highlight the Projecta battery chargers disclosed in D14. In particular, we note the first page of this document in which the battery charger provided thereon is displaying a 50.0 amp current flow. Additionally, page 6 of this document describes that these chargers have an adjustable current which can be selected by a user to best suit the size of their battery.
Clearly, the skilled person would appreciate that these prior art battery chargers of D14 include a current measurement system built into the unit itself so as to be capable of calculating a net current flow to or from a battery so as to meet this requirement of having an adjustable current. It is interesting that the Applicant essentially concedes this in their submissions by stating that D14 discloses: “a battery charger and only provides information on charging input voltage and
input current”. Accordingly, the Applicant concedes that D14 discloses a battery charger that is, at a minimum, capable of calculating net current flow to a battery.
Given the Delegate found that the previous claims lacked inventiveness in view of the combination of D5 and D14, we submit that this assessment still holds in view of the foregoing. In particular, the combination of D5 and D14 still discloses to the person skilled in the art all of the features of independent Claims 1, 4 and 22 so as routinely lead them to the invention as claimed”.

The applicant on the other hand submitted that the feature of calculating net current is not disclosed in any of the prior art or an obvious inclusion.
“Advantages of using net current flow
It is difficult to accurately mathematically model a chemical reaction as found in a
battery. Advantageously, this use of net current flow facilitates a radical increase in
accuracy, even when there is no extra precision shown via having narrower percentage blocks on the screen.
Together with the user input data relating to battery type, this measurement facilitates presentation of different calculation output messages, resulting in a more accurate picture of the charge remaining in the battery, and the time before it is fully charged or discharged, to be displayed on the display.
Contrast with battery chargers
In contrast, battery chargers, such as those described in D5, D14, and D20, merely push current to a battery. Chargers are not battery management systems. The structure of D5, D14 and D20 and all chargers make it impossible to assess the outflow of current from a battery, which is critical to measuring net current flow to or from a battery, and forming a more accurate picture of the state of charge of the battery.
Setting aside that this is not the time fore (sic) new evidence, and that there is no evidence that the circuit diagram came from D20, the shunt described by the opponent in its 14 March 2019 remarks cannot function to identify the net current flow to or from the battery. Indeed the one in the picture does not. What that part of the circuit does is to measure current flow to the battery, and perhaps measure current in some other circuitry for managing the charging. This is not net current flow to or from a battery as understood in the specification, and by a person of skill in the art using their common general knowledge, reading the claim as a whole.
To give another example of another limitations of prior art chargers, it can be seen that if the battery charger of D5, D14 and D20 is switched off (to the extent that the monitoring electronics still have power but the charging current is not flowing), there is no way to discharge the battery through the charger’s electronics to measure flow out of the battery. It is not possible. So, it can be seen in the manual that there is only positive current measured, thus, flow outwards cannot be measured or shown. This is not holistic battery management, only forcing charge into the battery. In contrast, with the present invention, even when the charging current is disabled and the box is being used as a power supply, the state of charge of the battery is shown, and the time to discharge is shown.
In summary, the prior art identified by the opponent cannot see flow out of the power
outlets. The present invention monitors power outlet flow in aggregate, back to the
battery, and calculates net current flow to or from the battery.
Combination patent
A patent claim is not to be understood as a mosaic of elements which one may find in several documents.
These patent claims are to a combination patent. There is no combination of prior art information which provides the portability and accuracy of battery charge, or accuracy of time to charge or discharge, of the present invention. Those advantages are facilitated by an assessment of net current flow to or from the battery, and selection of battery type, in the processor, which then displays refined quantities of charge, and time to charge or discharge”.
D5 is a battery box with a built-in battery charger. It provides an indication of the state of charge (charge level) of the battery. There is no disclosure of measuring input and output currents and calculating the net current to the battery housed within the battery box.
In relation to D14, the document discloses on page 6 that the device allows the user “to adjust and select the charge rate from as low as 2 Amps to best suit the size of your batteries”. However, I can find no disclosure that the device measures the discharge current and then uses the values of the charging current and the discharging current to calculate the net current flow. It only measures and displays the charging current and that is not the same as the net current as I have construed this term. Furthermore there is no suggestion that it can manage discharge operations of the battery.
In relation to D20, the circuit diagram provided by the opponent was never part of the evidence filed by the opponent for this opposition. So it is clearly new material and the opponent has not made any request under regulation 5.23 for this material to be consulted by the Commissioner. Hence I will not have regard to this new information. However I will consult document D20 as originally filed in evidence. This document titled “Dual Source” relates to Operating Instructions for product model PCS10A. This device is stated to be both a smart battery charger and a DC power supply in a heavy duty case. Mr Ke has stated that this product was released in 2005.
When used as a battery charger it can charge all deep-cycle, sealed lead-acid and gel batteries. When used as a DC power supply it can supply an adjustable DC voltage. The output voltage may be adjusted from 3.5V -15V and the output current is 0 - 10A maximum. It has two meters on the front panel to indicate the charging voltage and current output. It appears that the current meter will indicate the current supplied to the battery during charging operations and also the current drawn by the load during power supply operations. Hence there is disclosure of measuring both current to the battery and current from the battery. However, the battery charging operation and the power supply operation are distinct operations and there is no suggestion that they can occur simultaneously. Also there is no teaching that it has a processor that is capable of calculating the net current flow to the battery and that it can manage discharge operations of the battery.
In summary, none of the three documents identified by the opponent clearly teach a charging system that has a processing system that is configured to calculate net current flow to or from the battery. As submitted by the applicant, the devices of all three documents appear to have the capability to only manage charging operations, but not discharging operations. The evidence of Mr Ke in relation to common general knowledge also does not talk about measuring net current and using this to manage the charging and/or discharging operations.
I am consequently not satisfied that the independent claims as amended are obvious in light of the combined disclosure of D5 and D14 or the combined disclosure of D5, D14 and D20.
CLARITY
While my first decision did not identify any lack of clarity deficiencies, the opponent has submitted that as a result of the amendments, claims 1 and 4 lack clarity. While these alleged lack of clarity issues were considered by the examiner and found not to have been made out before deciding to allow the amendments to the claims, I will still briefly consider them.
Claim 1
The opponent has submitted that the new integer ‘further facilitate the display of different messages or images on the display screen’, introduces lack of clarity as it is unclear whether “this integer relates to the earlier recitation of ‘messages or images in Claim 1, or as the language suggests that they relate to different messages or images to those previously recited”.
Claim 1 initially recites that the processing system causes different messages or images to be displayed on the display screen depending on the battery type input to the processing system and it then defines that the processing system can further facilitate the display of different messages or images depending on the net current flow to or from the battery.
The claim is clearly not limited to displaying only 1 message at any point in time; it includes within its scope the simultaneous display of two or more different messages on the display screen. It is entirely possible that one or more of these messages could be dependent on the battery type input to the system or the net current flow calculated by the system or both. This is also clearly contemplated in the body of the specification. The skilled addressee would have no difficulty in understanding the scope of the amended claim. Claim 1 is clear.
Claim 4
The opponent has submitted that there are two lack of clarity issues with amended claim 4.
“Amended Claim 4 initially recites “a battery which in use is removably disposed in a portable housing having opposed walls having an open top, and a lid for closing the open top”, but also goes onto recite the step of: “providing a battery box for housing a battery, the battery box including spaced-apart walls for receiving a battery for removable mounting therein, a lid for closing the housing and a charging apparatus for charging the battery”. From this, it is unclear as to whether the originally recited “portable housing” and the “battery box” now recited in this claim are to be construed as the same or different integers or features. This is particularly
confusing as the claim subsequently refers to “the portable housing” several times throughout the various steps of the method, but not “the battery box”.
Claim 4 has also been amended to recite the step of: “calculating net current flow to or from the battery”. It is unclear from the claim how this step of calculating the net current flow is to be achieved. By way of example, is net current flow to be calculated manually by a user or rather by a processor integral with the battery box or portable housing?
The claims as amended are thus unclear pursuant to section 40(3)”.
The applicant submitted that preamble of claim 4 sets out the functional and structural context of the portable housing and this is then followed by the positive recitation of its structural features and that there is no lack of clarity. In relation to the net current flow, they argued that it is perfectly clear that the calculation is done in the processor.
I am inclined to agree. The authorities have made it clear that claims should be construed in a practical common sense manner in the context of the specification as a whole.
“the words in a claim should be read through the eyes of the skilled addressee in the context in which they appear ... while the claims define the monopoly claimed in the words of the patentee's choosing, the specification should be read as a whole ... it is not permissible to read into a claim an additional integer or limitation to vary or qualify the claim by reference to the body of the specification ... terms in the claim which are unclear may be defined or clarified by reference to the body of the specification” (H Lundbeck A/S v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2009] FCAFC 70, 81 IPR 228 at [118] – [120])
When read in context, it would be amply clear to the skilled addressee that the portable housing and the battery box which are both defined as housing a battery do indeed refer to the same integer. Even if any ambiguity exists, it could be clearly be resolved by reference to the body of the specification.
With respect to the step of calculating net current flow, the claim defines that the computing processor measures one or more measured battery charging and/or discharging parameters and then goes on to define that net current flow is calculated and that the net current flow is used by the processor to estimate charging and discharging parameters. In my view, when read in context, it is again quite clear that net current flow is calculated by the processor.
Independent claim 4 does not lack clarity as a result of the amendment.
CONCLUSION
The amendments to the claims overcome the lack of fair basis and lack of inventive steps findings in my first decision and do not introduce any new deficiencies. Subject to any appeal, I direct that the application proceeds to grant.
R Subbarayan
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents