Appellant, in effect it is not so. Paragraph 63 contains reference to Section 2(1)(ja) of 1970 Act and Manual for Patent office practice procedure describing steps for evaluating the inventive steps. Paragraph 64 contains references to the judgments. Paragraphs 65 to 71 incorporate references to the prior-art documents D1-D7 and their teachings. Paragraph 72 is only an extract of part of the recommendation of the Opposition Board. Albeit the two sub-paragraphs of paragraph 72, according to the Respondents are observations of the Controller on his independent analyses, but a close perusal shows otherwise as these are recommendations of the Board taken verbatim from the Report. It is thus clear that there is no independent application of mind by the Controller and consequently, no independent analysis on the grounds raised in the post-grant opposition. 27. In the earlier part of this order, Court has referred to some of the broad contentions of the Appellant raised in the post-grant opposition with a view to show that detailed grounds of opposition were taken by the Appellant. However, unfortunately, none of these have been independently considered by the Controller and the order is nothing but a reproduction of patentee’s written submission with sprinkling of recommendations of the Opposition Board. This Court in Synthes (supra) and Huhtamaki Oyj (supra) has seriously condemned the manner in which the Controllers are passing the orders relating to patents. Courts have observed that the impugned orders are merely cut and paste and while this is itself disquieting, the Court may not have taken a serious note, had the Controllers condescended to supplement the cut and pasted paragraphs with their own reasoning, displaying some minimal application of mind, which was sadly lacking.
