Replies

The second phrase is ‘economic significance’. An invention to be non-obvious has to have ‘economic significance’ or ‘technical advances as compared to existing knowledge’! If so, what is the very purpose of the ‘utility’ criterion for patentability? By bringing ‘economic significance’ under the definition of ‘non-obviousness’ what has been fundamentally diluted is a cardinal principle of patent law! This new definition defeats the objectives behind the amendment. It interferes with the time-tested principles of patents law, and in that process has created a new definition that can lead to loose interpretations. It indeed falls short of the international legal practices on patentability – And arguably it is TRIPS non-compliant.