THE PATENTS ACT, 1970ipindiaservices.gov.in/decision/224-CHE-2010-40947/POST...In the matter of Post-Grant Opposition filed under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act (as amended) by DIAMOND

THE PATENTS ACT, 1970 (39 of 1970)

As amended by

THE PATENTS (AMENDMENT) ACT 2005 (15 of 2005)

(with effective from 1-1-2005)

&

THE PATENTS RULES 2003 As amended by

THE PATENTS (AMENDMENT) RULES 2006 (with effective from 16-05-2016)

In the matter of Post Grant Opposition under The Section 25(2) of the Patents (Amendment)

Act 2005 and the Patents Rules 55-A to 63 of The Patents (Amendment) Rules 2016

AND

In the matter of Patent bearing the

Number 266332 with the Application Number 224/CHE/2010 filed on 29th January 2010

By G.R.KALIAPERUMAL of Radha Decors, 105/6 Lawspet Main Road, Pethuchettipet,

PUDUCHERRY, Tamil Nadu, India

AND

In the matter of Post-Grant Opposition filed under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act (as amended) by

Hock KengHeng Plaster Industrial Sdn Bhd, a Malaysian Company

AND

In the matter of Post-Grant Opposition filed under

Section 25(2) of the Patents Act (as amended) by P.SUNIL, an Indian National and of Chennai

AND

In the matter of Post-Grant Opposition filed under

Section 25(2) of the Patents Act (as amended) by DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INEX PVT LTD,

GURGAON INDIA

AND

In the matter of Post-Grant Opposition filed under Section 25(2) of the Patents Act (as amended) by

M.JOTHI, an Indian National and of Madurai

D E C I S I O N

G.R. KALIAPERUMAL, representing RADHA DECORS having address at 105/6, Lawspet Main Road (Near Lawspet Police Station), Pethuchettipet, Puducherry, India, hereinafter is referred as “PATENTEE” throughout this decision has obtained a Patent right under the Patents Act, hereinafter will be referred as “Act” throughout this decision for his invention titled as “A COMPOSITION, ORNAMENTAL PLASTER MOLD AND A METHOD FOR PREPARING SAID MOLD THEREOF” on 28th April 2015 and published in Patent Office Journal with Patent Number 266332 on 1st May 2015. Under the provisions of the Section 25 (2) of the Patents Act any interested person can apply for opposition within the non-extendable time limit of 12 months from the date of publication. In the instant case the last date to file the Post-grant opposition is 1st May 2016. Within the stipulated period, 4 interested persons have filed the Post-grant opposition in the prescribed manner and the details are shown as hereunder.

TOTAL NUMBER OF OPPONENTS: 04

Serial number Name of the Opponent

Represented by Address for communication Form-7 was filed on

1 Hock KengHeng Plaster Industrial SdnBhd, a Malaysian Company

GroverLaw H-36, GREEN PARK EXTENSION, NEW DELHI – 110 016 Ph: +911244145520 Mobile: 919899764800 Email: [email protected]

24/07/2015

2 P.SUNIL, of Chennai

M/s GIRIDHAR & SAI ASSOCIATES

No. 319, LinghiChetti Street, III Floor, George Town, Chennai-600001 Ph: 04425243949/42163949 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

02/09/2015

3 DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INEX PVT LTD, GURGAON INDIA

KOCHHAR & Co Suite #1120-21, IInd Floor, Tower-A, DLF Towers, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi-110025

08/02/2016

Ph: 911141115222/43129300 Email: [email protected]

4 M.JOTHI of Madurai

SAMPRATI BASANT [AGENT NO: IN/PA 2500]

PO: KAPALESWAR DISTRICT: KENDRAPARA ODISHA – 754211 Ph.No: 917751087900 Email: [email protected]

27/04/2016

Address for communication for the patentee with respect to each opponent.

Serial Number of opponents as above

Patentee represented by

Address for correspondance

E-mail address

1 G.K.Muthukumar R.VijayaSudha S.Sivasundaram GMS Law Associates

Erode House, New No.66, III Main Road, Gandhi Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020.

[email protected]



[email protected]



[email protected]



[email protected]

Before proceeding further it is pertinent to look into the granted claims which were objected to and the aim and scope of the invention as disclosed in the specification. Granted claims are 9 in number and they are:

1. An composition for making ornamental plaster mold for installation in a room space along the juncture of a ceiling and a wall or ceiling comprising, a) Plaster of Paris is between 25% and 75% b) reinforcing material is between 1% and 14% c) water is between 5% and 45%.

2. The plaster composition as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reinforcing fiber is synthetic fiber,

coir fiber, jute fiber, glass wool fiber and the like; synthetic fiber is polymer, cross linked polymer, homopolymer, copolymer or mixture thereof.

mailto:[email protected]

3. The thickness of the fiber is between 0.001 mm and 9 mm and the length of the fiber is between 1 mm and 100 mm.

4. A ornamental plaster mold for installation in a room space along the juncture of a ceiling or on the wall or ceiling comprising, a first layer and third layer is plaster of paris wherein the reinforced material is sandwiched between said first layer and third layer.

5. The ornamental plaster as claimed in claim 4, wherein the top layer is an outer decorative surface for facing into the room space and including raised decorative ornamentation along the ceiling and the wall.

6. The ornamental plaster mold as claimed in claim 4, wherein the sandwiched middle layer is reinforcing materials such as fiber.

7. The ornamental plaster mold as claimed in claim 4, wherein the reinforcing fiber layer is uniform throughout the mold and the thickness is between 0.001 mm to 15 m, more preferably between 0.005 mm and 10 mm.

8. The ornamental plaster mold as claimed in claim 4, wherein the reinforcing fiber is sprinkled throughout the mold randomly such as stripes, cross linked, round or any other shape and the third layer is placed on the second reinforcing layer.

9. A method for making an ornamental plaster mold comprising: a) preparing s slurry of plaster of paris and water in the predetermined proportion with

thorough mixing; b) pouring the slurry in a predetermined pattern mold to make a desired ornamental

decorative mold with desired thickness to form a first layer; c) providing reinforcing fiber onto said first layer with the desired thickness to form a second

reinforcing layer; d) pouring the said slurry onto the reinforcing second layer to form third layer wherein the

surface of the said third layer is flat; e) allowing the mold formed using the composition to set and then it is removed and dried

with known methods. In this decisions the claim 1 to 3 are referred as “composition claims”; the claims 4 to 8 are referred as “product claims; and the 9th claim is referred as “process claim”. Under the background of the invention in the descriptive portion of the invention the Patentee has stated that there is a prior knowledge with respect to the additives that are added to plaster and there is a change in the properties of the molds depending upon the additives chosen to prepare the mold. It is further stated that the molds prepared from alpha calcined gypsum are stronger, denser and less porous compared to those manufactured from beta calcined gypsum. Additives when admixed are known to improve the hardness of the gypsum mold and usually reduce the porosity of the mold. Strength may also be increased by casting a denser gypsum mold; however this typically has a negative effect on porosity. Loss of porosity reduces both the ability of the mold to wick moisture away from the clay slip and also reduces the purge rate of the gypsum mold. Referring to the prior US Patent document, 4,818,287 the Patentee stated that this prior document discloses a fiber reinforced plaster molds for metal casting in which an improved composition and process for preparing plaster molds used in casting non-ferrous metals is provided wherein plaster molds are prepared from particulate calcium sulphate molding plaster admixed with insoluble calcium sulphate anhydrite whisker fibers.

Therefore according to the Patentee the object of the invention is to provide a plaster composition for making an ornamental plaster mold for installation in a room space along the juncture of a ceiling and a wall “WITH IMPROVED STRENGTH”. The embodiments of the present invention according to the Patentee as disclosed in the description of the specification are related to the subject matter of the granted claims. Further embodiment [probably the aim of the invention] as stated therein is to provide a stronger binding plaster composition with an improved life time for mold and dispensed with breakage, hairline crack with improved strength. As stated in page 3 of the description of the invention is related to still further embodiment is to provide a fiber reinforced plaster composition for making an ornamental plaster mold for installation in a room space along the juncture of a ceiling and a wall. Under the detailed description of the specification in page 6 it is stated that “The thickness of the fiber is between 0.001 mm and 9 mm and the length of the fiber is between 1 mm and 100 mm”. OBSERVATION FROM PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE DISCLOSURE IN THE DESCRIPTION

1. It is understood that the person skilled in the art probably would use beta calcined gypsum for the preparation of molds because requisite porosity is achievable by selecting so.

2. US Patent, the prior citation though hints at the use of fibers but is restricted to insoluble calcium sulphate anhydrite whisker fibers for the preparation of plaster molds made out of gypsum.

3. The probable aim of the invention according to the Patentee is to provide a novel composition by the use of which gypsum molds are made that are used for ornamental purposes wherein thus manufactured gypsum molds are expected to exhibit or exhibits improved life time for mold and dispensed with breakage, hairline crack with improved strength.

4. The probable aim as stated in point number 3 [immediately above] is a statement made by the Patentee and surprisingly the specification is silent on any experimental data with or without comparison to prove the presence of advantages as stated therein.

5. Though the Patentee has specified the nature of the middle layer which is the reinforcing layer, comprising the fibers of the given thickness and length nowhere in the specification there is a clue on why such limitations are made and how such limitations will achieve the desired results.

6. It is further understood that the novel composition with which the molds are manufactured shall exhibit all the desired properties viz., improved life time for mold and dispensed with breakage, hairline crack with improved strength.

The present decision discusses the arguments made by the Opponents and by the Patentee in the chronological order of filing the Notices of Opposition by the opponents under the provisions of the Section 25(2) of the Patents Act which hereinafter will be referred as Act. THE FIRST OPPONENT: M/s Hock KengHeng Plaster Industrial SdnBhd, a Malaysian Company: M/s Hock KengHeng Plaster Industrial SdnBhd, a Malaysian Company, hereinafter will be referred as the first opponent throughout this decision has filed Written Statement and evidences comprising 4 volumes of a total of 977 pages. The first volume comprises pages from 1 to 250; the second volume comprises pages from 251 to 500; the third volume comprises pages from 501 to 750; and the fourth volume comprises pages from 501 to 977.

The first opponent has stated that he is a leading manufacturer and exporter of all kinds of ornamental gypsum plaster moldings and articles including cornices, covering, medallions, corner frames and other related products. His products are sold in a number of countries across the globe, including India, and the opponent is in the business since 1996. Since the subject matter of the impugned invention is related to a composition, ornamental plaster mold and a method for preparing said mold thereof and since the opponent is involved such business across the globe is a party interested according to the provisions of the Act. Therefore acknowledging the locus standi the opposition proceedings are taken on record. The first opponent through their opposition has stated that they are relying on the specified grounds of the opposition as laid in the Section 25(2) of the Act. Specified section of the Act comprising the grounds from 25(2)(a) to 25(2)(l). But the first opponent has limited the arguments based on the grounds of opposition from the Section 25(2)(a) to 25(2)(h). OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 25(2)(a): WRONGFULLY OBTAINED The first opponent has argued that the subject matter of the impugned patent has been wrongfully obtained from the knowledge of subject matter available in the public domain well before the priority of the impugned patent. It is further stated that the first opponent has been manufacturing the products namely, glass fiber reinforced plaster cornices and mouldings/plaster moulding materials since 1996. An assortment of catalogues from the years 1998 (the opponent); 2004(China); 2006 (Australia); and 2008(Malaysia) are annexed as Annexure D. it is further stated that the Patentee is the customer of the first opponent and in proof of that copies of invoices from March 2012 to February 2015 are annexed as Annexure E where it is shown that the Patentee has purchased opponent’s architectural fibrous plaster products such as cornices, corners, medallions, ceiling panels, pillars, uplighters and domes. The Patentee in reply to the above has submitted that it is denied that the opponent has been manufacturing glass fiber reinforced plaster molds since 1996. It is further stated that none of the inventive features of the present invention are from common knowledge. It is stressed by the Patentee that the Annexures D & E are only copies of catalogues and invoices which any way do not state that the inventive features of the present invention are wrongfully obtained. The Opposition Board has opined that catalogues related with the cornices do not speak the patented composition and proposition. Hence opposition under Section 25(2)(a) is not valid. CONCLUSION: Agreeing to the view of the opposition Board it is held that the ground of opposition under the provisions of the Section 25(2)(a) is not a valid ground for revocation of patent. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 25(2)(b): PRIOR PUBLICATION The first opponent has relied on US 3062670A, hereinafter will be referred as D1, to file an opposition under the provisions of the Section 25(2)(b) for prior publication. Referring to Claim 2 of D1 which reads thus; “2. A composition consisting essentially of calcined gypsum reinforced with glass fibers having an average diameter of from about 0.003" to 0.005", and a fiber diameter to fiber length ratio of from about 0.003 to 0.020, said composition when mixed with Water forming a moldable and settable slurry”,

the first opponent has stated that all the three essential elements of the Claims 1 and 2 of the impugned patent are claimed prior to the priority date of the impugned patent. The first opponent has further relied to prove prior publication on a brochure titled ‘Malaysia The Big-5’printed for exhibition held at Dubai World Trade Centre, Dubai, UAE, in November 2008 which is adduced as Annexure F. In addition the first opponent in their adduced Annexure G attached the copies of assorted catalogues and brochures which are in circulation in the global market since as early as 1998. In their Annexure H copies of assorted sales invoices dated from the years 2006 to 2010 evidencing sales of architectural gypsum moulded products such as cornices, corners, medallions, ceiling panels, pillars, uplighters and domes. In their reply to the opposition the Patentee submits that Dl does not deal with or teach any of the inventive features or claims of the impugned patent as in the preceding paragraphs. It pertains only to glass fiber, which per se is not the subject of any of the claims of the impugned patent or dealt with in the specification. Further it relates to glass fiber reinforced with hydrated gypsum products. This does not teach the composition of claim 1, or the thickness of the reinforcing fiber layer or disclose the uniform nature of the reinforcing fiber layer or a combination of the reinforced fiber as claimed in claimed in the impugned patent, or the said thickness range. Further the range and diameter, of the fiber and ratio of the fiber length is only what is disclosed in Dl. This aspect is also different in the impugned patent and the inventive feature of the impugned patent is not the diameter or thickness or length of the fiber per se but the use of the fiber in a ratio as in claim 1 and as a reinforcing layer in the middle, which is uniform and of specified thickness and the entire combination. Therefore D1 does not disclose the inventive features of the impugned invention nor does it teach the working. Based on it a person skilled in the art cannot come up with the impugned invention. Therefore the objection on the basis of D1 is unsustainable. The contrary averments in this regard are denied us incorrect and misleading. The patentee further submits that Annexures F, G and H are broachers; catalogues and sales invoices and these do not advance the opponents objections u/s 25(2)(b) and hence the contentions on their basis are denied as being without merit and ill founded. That apart the sale invoices under Annexure-H are unaudited, unauthentic documents and hence these cannot be relied upon as evidence and the patentee disputes them on these grounds and raises serious objections objecting to their evidential value. That apart, they do not disclose of teach the invention or touch upon any of the inventive features of the impugned patent and hence are without merit and hence denied on this ground also. The first Opponent has submitted in the Reply Evidence that the invention of D1 relates to a glass reinforced gypsum wherein the composition for glass fiber reinforced gypsum involves calcined gypsum which is identical to plaster of Paris, glass wool fiber disclosed in 01 is identical to the reinforcing material mentioned by the Patentee in the impugned Patent and water is the common element. Therefore, the features of D1 and the impugned Patent are identical. Additionally, it is submitted that in claim 7 of the impugned Patent the Patentee claims that the reinforcing fiber layer is uniform throughout the mold and the thickness is between 0.001 mm to 15 mm ... whereas in the Reply Statement the Patentee submits that a reinforcing layer in the middle, which is uniform and of specified thickness and the entire combination. It is submitted that the brochures, catalogues and invoices adduced as Annexures F, G and H, respectively to my earlier affidavit clearly establish that both the composition and ornamental plaster

mould of the impugned Patent were manufactured/sold in the market in India as well as other countries before the filing date of the impugned Patent. The Opposition Board has submitted their opinion which suggests that; Since the document US 3062670A does not discloses percentage of components of plaster composition of Patented claims 1-2, Claims 1 and 2 are novel over the document US3062670A as opposed in the statement of the opposition.. Hence, opposition under 25(2)(b) is not valid. CONCLUSION: On the perusal of the description of D1 it is understood that choosing the reinforcement material alters the properties of gypsum made products. Attention is drawn to the following paragraphs of D1 which are reproduced herein. “Various materials other than glass fibers have been used to reinforce plaster including Wood fibers, saw dust, sisal fibers, asbestos, paper pulp, and many other materials. The selection of the proper reinforcing material is a continuing endeavor and it has been found that the proper selection of fiber reinforcement results in improved properties and unusual results. Although good results were obtained in the past, improved results are attained in accordance with the teachings of the present invention.” According to the objects of the D1 wherein it is stated that the stated invention is attained by providing the proper glass fiber reinforcement which is combined with gypsum to produce reinforced gypsum products having improved physical properties. It has been found that several critical factors including fiber diameter, fiber length, and proportion of fibers added to the gypsum must be considered in attaining improved physical properties of the final reinforced gypsum products. It has been found that textile fibers are not the best reinforcement for gypsum, but rather those large fibers having a diameter greater than the textile fibers which have been used formerly as reinforcements, should be used. Fibers produced by continuous fiber forming methods and chopped into the desirable length have been found satisfactory. Fibers having a diameter about ten times that of the above commercially available textile fibers has been found preferable. Good quality and uniform results are attained by utilization of chopped fibers having a diameter greater than textile fibers. A great advantage of large diameter fibers resides in the increased resistance to alkali attack which they exhibit over smaller diameter fibers." The increased resistance is a function of the decreased surface to mass ratio of the larger diameter fibers. The decreased alkali attack is important in gypsum reinforcements and also very important in reinforcements for Portland cement. Hence it can be concluded that glass fibers can be used as reinforcing material in the preparation of ornamental gypsum products. Further it is concluded on the nature of the glass fibers to be used. The claim 1 of D1 states that “1. A composition consisting essentially of gypsum plaster reinforced with glass fibers having an average diameter of from about 0.003" to 0.005 and a ratio of fiber diameter to fiber length of from 0.003 to 0.020, said fibers comprising from 0.3 to 3% by weight of the total composition.” In other words the quantum of glass fibers in the total composition has been taught. When looked at the granted claim of the Patentee’s claim wherein it is stated that the reinforcement material is used between 1 and 14% whereas 3% is the maximum limitation is provided in D1. Therefore a part of Patentee’s claim 1 falls within the scope of the claim 1 of D1. Hence it is concluded that D1 teaches all the essential elements of the Patentee’s claim with a difference of increased quantum of reinforcing material. Though Opposition Board has opined that the Patentee’s

invention is considered as novel at least with respect to composition it is opined that Novelty of the Patentee’s invention is partially lost because the Patentee could not establish any improvement over the products of D1. Hence this ground of opposition is considered as valid for the revocation of patent. With respect to the contents of Annexures G & H nothing can be concluded. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 25(2)(c): PRIOR CLAIMING The first opponent has relied on the earlier Indian Patent Application identified as 2005/CHENP/2012 which is D2 wherein D2 discloses a gypsum board for generating negative ions and far-infrared radiation and a method of producing the same. This application was filed in India on March 5, 2012 claiming priority from Malaysian patent application no. PI 20093209 of August 3, 2009. The said D2 was published in Indian Patent Journal on 11/07/2014 and awaiting technical examination. Since the priority of D2 is prior to the Patentee’s application D2 can be considered under Prior Claiming under the provisions of the Section 25(2)(c) of the Act. The first opponent has relied on the claims 1, 3, 5 and 6 of D2 which are reproduced herein; Claim 1 of D2: A gypsum board for generating negative ions and far infrared radiation comprising; A surface panel (50) embedded with pulverized mineral powder means for generating negative ions and far infrared radiation; A base (52) means for covering; and A layer of fiber glass (51) sandwiched in between the surface panel (50) and the base (52) means for providing strength reinforcement to the gypsum board. Claim 3 of D2: The gypsum board for generating negative ions and far infrared radiation in accordance with claim 1 wherein the surface panel (50) comprises pulverized mineral powder in a range of 0.09 wt % of the initial total weight of the gypsum board, gypsum powder in the range of 10 wt % to 15 wt % of the initial total weight of the gypsum board and water in the range of 9 wt % to 1w2 wt % of the initial total weight of the gypsum board. Claim 5 of D2: The gypsum board for generating negative ions and infrared radiation in accordance with claim 1 wherein the layer of fiber glass in a range of 2 wt % to 3 wt % of the initial total weight of the gypsum board. Claim 6 of D2: The gypsum board for generating negative ions and infrared radiation in accordance with claim 1 wherein the base (52) comprises of mixture of gypsum powder and water in a range of 70 wt % to 80 wt % of the initial total weight of the gypsum board.

Referring to the above claims the first opponent has stated that D2 refers to the presence of all the essential elements of the impugned invention. The first opponent has contended that in D2 gypsum is heated at high temperatures to produce dehydrated gypsum or plaster of paris. This plaster of paris again becomes gypsum on addition of water causing the material to harden or set in ways that are useful for casting and construction. Therefore, it is apparent to a person skilled in the art that the gypsum powder of claim 3 of D2 is similar to the plaster of paris of claim 1 of the impugned patent. Further it is stated that the patentee’s claim 2 refers to glass wool fiber as reinforcing material which is equivalent to fiber glass of claim 5 of D2. Claims 3 and 6 of D2 refers to water as one of the essential components wherein the same water is also essential part of the Patentee’s composition. Claim 4 of the Patentee is related to an ornamental plaster mould which is akin to the gypsum board of D2 and the three layered structured is claimed before the priority date of the Patentee through the claims 1, 3 and 6 of D2. Hence it is prayed that claim 4 of the Patentee is clearly disclosed and anticipated by D2. With respect to the subject matter of claim 5 of the Patentee the first opponent has drawn the attention to the last paragraph of page 8 of the description of D2 wherein it is stated that “The surface panel (50) serves as the surface layer of the gypsum board exposing to the interior of a building with the intention of maximizing the area to emit negative ions and far infrared radiation….”, which according to the first opponent is identical to the top layer of the ornamental plaster mold of claim 5 of the Patentee and therefore the claim 5 is anticipated by D2. With respect to the subject matter of claim 6 of the Patentee the first opponent has drawn the attention to the first paragraph of page 9 of the description of D2 wherein it is stated that “the layer of fiber glass (51) is sandwiched between the surface panel (50) and a base (52) means for reinforcing the gypsum board whereby the layer of fiber glass (52) id formed from evenly distributed fiber glass strands. The base (52) is attached to the layer of fiber glass (51) and serves as protective base for the gypsum board…..”, which according to the first opponent is identical to the sandwiched middle layer of the fiber as disclosed in claim 6 of the Patentee and hence disclosed and anticipated by D2. With respect to the subject matter of claim 7 of the Patentee the first opponent has contended that since claim 7 is dependent on claim 4 of the Patentee is also anticipated by D2. With respect to the subject matter of claim 8 of the Patentee the first opponent has drawn the attention to the last paragraph of page 9 of the description of D2 wherein it is stated that “ the present invention also disclosed a method of producing the gypsum board for generating negative ions and far infrared radiation. The first step is to prepare a ionic mixture with about 0.09 wt% to 0.15 wt % of pulverized mineral powder, about 10 wt % to 15 wt % of gypsum powder and about 9 wt % to 12 wt % of water. A gypsum mixture with approximately 70 wt % to 80 wt % of gypsum powder and water is prepared simultaneously. The second step is to mold the ionic mixture in a precast mold to form the surface panel (50) using a levelling means. Next approximately 2 wt % to 3 wt % of fiber glass is distributed evenly on to the surface panel (50) to form a layer of fiber glass (51). The layer of the fiber glass (51) is levelled using a cylindrical roller means to ensure an even surface. Subsequently, the gypsum mixture is added onto the layer of the fiber glass (51) to form the base and followed by levelling of the base (52) using a levelling means” , and according to the opponent the surface panel, layer of fiber glass and the base of D2 are identical to the first, second and third layers of the product of the Patentee. Hence claim 8 is anticipated by D2.

With respect to the subject matter of claim 9 of the Patentee the first opponent has drawn the attention to the Claim 9 of D2 which is; Claim 9 of D2: A method for producing a gypsum board for generating negative ions and far infrared radiation comprising the steps of: First mixing a pulverized mineral powder with gypsum powder and water to form an ionic mixture; Simultaneously, mixing gypsum powder with water to form a gypsum mixture; Second, molding the ionic mixture using a precast mold to form a surface panel (50); Third, levelling the surface panel (50); Fourth, distributing fiber glass on the surface panel (50) to form a layer of fiber glass (51); Fifth, levelling the layer of fiber glass (51) using a cylindrical means; Sixth, adding the gypsum mixture on to the layer of fiber glass (51) to form a base (52); Seventh, levelling the base (52); Eigth, settling the gypsum board; Ninth, removing the gypsum board from the mold; and curing the gypsum board. Comparing both the claim 9 of the Patentee and claim 9 of the D2 the first opponent has stated that the portions of Patentee’s claim and Claim 9 of D2 can be superimposed as shown below. The steps of Claim 9 of the Patentee are taken as a base for comparison. 9.a) preparing s slurry of plaster of paris and water in the predetermined proportion with thorough mixing; b)pouring the slurry in a predetermined pattern mold to make a desired ornamental decorative mold with desired thickness to form a first layer; is identical to the part of claim 9 of D2 which is “First mixing a pulverized mineral powder with gypsum powder and water to form an ionic mixture; Simultaneously, mixing gypsum powder with water to form a gypsum mixture; Second, molding the ionic mixture using a precast mold to form a surface panel (50);” c) providing reinforcing fiber onto said first layer with the desired thickness to form a second reinforcing layer; is identical to the part of claim 9 of D2 “Fourth, distributing fiber glass on the surface panel (50) to form a layer of fiber glass (51); Fifth, levelling the layer of fiber glass (51) using a cylindrical means;” d) pouring the said slurry onto the reinforcing second layer to form third layer wherein the surface of the said third layer is flat; is identical to the part of claim 9 of D2 “Sixth, adding the gypsum mixture on to the layer of fiber glass (51) to form a base (52); e) allowing the mold formed using the composition to set and then it is removed and dried with known methods. is identical to the part of claim 9 of D2 “Eigth, settling the gypsum board; Ninth, removing the gypsum board from the mold; and curing the gypsum board. According the first opponent 9a & b) is the first layer; 9c) is the middle layer; 9d) is third layer and finally 9e) is the final product. In view of this comparison Claim 9 of the Patentee is anticipated by D2. In their reply the Patentee has stated that an analysis of the claims 1 to 11 of D2 and a consideration of them with the claims 1 to 9 of the impugned patent would clearly show that none of the inventive features of the impugned patent have been dealt with or are the subject of any of the claims 1 to 11 of D2. Further D2 does not disclose claim 1 or any of the other claims more so claim 2, 3, 6 and 7 of the

impugned patent. D2 talks the most of fiber glass sandwich between a service layer and base to provide strength to the gypsum board. But the impugned patent does not claim fiber glass. Further the composition of the gypsum powder and water in the range of 70wt % to 80wt % of the initial total weight of the gypsum board is not what the impugned patent claim 1 pertains to. Further the impugned patent also has a reinforcing fiber middle layer in a range along with plaster of paris and water all in a range to each other. Therefore the impugned patent comprises of a percentage of components viz., plaster of paris, reinforced fibre and water and not just water and gypsum powder as in D2. The components in the three layers are in a ratio and proportion to each other and the uniformity and thickness of the second layer are all novel and unique to the impugned patent and form its inventive features. These are not the subject of D1. Still further the impugned patent in claims 3, 6 and 7 deals with the uniformity of the middle layer, thickness of the middle layer and the thickness and length of the fiber. None of these are in any manner dealt with under D2. Through their reply evidence the first opponent has stated that it is admitted that the prior art document adduced as D2 to their earlier affidavit relates to the field of a gypsum board for generating negative ions and far infrared rays to assist in providing a healthy living environment and a method of producing thereof. However, upon an analysis it is discernible that the claims 1 to 11, description and drawings of D2 clearly disclose the subject matter claimed in the impugned Patent. It is evident that the composition, ornamental plaster mould and method for making the plaster mould of the impugned Patent are similar to the gypsum board and method for producing gypsum board as disclosed in D2. The Opposition Board has opined that 2005/CHENP/2012 is not considered as a valid document for prior claiming because it is filed in India after the priority/filing date of the impugned patent. Hence, opposition under 25(2)(c) is not valid. CONCLUSION: On the perusal of D2 it is observed that the aim of the invention is to provide a clean environment where gypsum boards are used for ceiling as a mere decorative element, the use of which do not serve to promote healthy living environment. Hence the invention is related to neutralize the positive ions and promote higher concentration of negative ions in a given environment for a healthy living of human beings. As understood from the intention of D2 the invention is not towards the improvement of the flexural strength of a gypsum board per se but is related to such gypsum board that can generate negative ions and far infrared radiation from any existing arts. Further from the subject matter of claims 1, 3 and 6 it is evident that surface panel (50) and base (52) have different compositions. Therefore it is concluded that D2 cannot be cited for prior claiming because the claim constructions are different both in the impugned patent and D2 though gypsum, glass fiber as reinforced material and water are common and the placement of reinforced material which is sandwiched. Hence this is not a valid ground for revocation of patent. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 25(2)(d): PRIOR KNOWLEDGE

In addition to the document D1 the first opponent intends to relay on another two documents, namely, US 6110575A, referred as D3 and US 2397121A, referred as D4 to oppose under the provisions of under the Section 25(2)(d0 of the Act. D3 discloses gypsum based composite article and a method for producing the same. D4 discloses an article of manufacture such as hollow cores, patterns or forms used as supports for shaping and or curing hollow thermoplastic materials. The first opponent has relied on the following claims of D1; D2 and D to oppose the granted Claims 1 and 2 of the Patentee. Claim 2 of D1: A composition consisting essentially of calcined gypsum reinforced with glass fibers having an average diameter of from about 0.003" to 0.005", and a fiber diameter to fiber length ratio of from about 0.003 to 0.020, said composition when mixed with Water forming a moldable and settable slurry. Claim 7 of D3: An article according to claim 1, wherein said mat is prepared by laying together continuous strands of said glass fibers made of an alkali-free glass, in all directions, using a binding agent, such that said mat has a substantially uniform thickness. It is contended by the first opponent that claim 2 of D1 teaches the presence of all the three essential components of granted claim 1 of the patentee. It is because calcined gypsum and plaster of paris are one and the same, further claim 2 of D1 refers to glass fibers as reinforced material. It is further stated that glass wool fiber as described by the patentee’s claim 2 is the glass fibers of claim 7 of D3. Further the first opponent has pointed out at the description in column 2, lines 5-11 of D4 which states that “Among fibers most suitable for making the layers of which hollow cores or patterns are made according to my invention I find flexible fiberglass of less than 0.0005 mm diameter preferably because it is of great strength and will withstand elevated temperatures and makes a most inert and strong core.” With reference to this description the first opponent has stated that glass wool fiber of claim 2 of the impugned patent has been disclosed in detailed description of D4 which provides strength and makes strong core. In attacking claim 4 of the granted claim 4 of the patentee the first opponent has relied on claim 1 and 2 of D3. Claim 1 of D3: A gypsum-based composite article reinforced with glass fibers, said article comprising: a first member made of a hard gypsum; a second member made of a soft gypsum having a compressive strength which is lower than that of said hard gypsum, said second member being formed on and bonded to said first member; and a mat made of said glass fibers, said mat being embedded in said article in a manner that said first member and said second member are bonded together by means of said mat. Claim 2 of D3: An article according to claim 1, wherein said mat is disposed between said first and second members.

In view of the claim 1 and 3 of D3 it is concluded that the first and third layers are made out of gypsum and the middle layer is a mat which is made of glass fibers. Hence claim 4 of the patentee is anticipated. The first opponent has drawn the attention to the description of D4 in column 3 lines 30-37 which describes “Multiple layers of paper or card board and/or Fiberglas may be used or paper and/0r cardboard or Fiberglas may be sandwiched between plaster layers. In any case I prefer that the exterior be cast of a smooth mix comprising as a principal ingredient a self-setting plaster, which will with-v stand the elevated temperatures required for curing bullet proof tanks of rubber-like material”. In other words it is to say that fiber glass can be used as a sandwich layer between two gypsum layers. Hence claim 4 of the patentee is anticipated. With respect to granted claim 5 of the patentee the first opponent has relied on the dependency of claim said claim 5 on the said claim 4. Therefore it is stated that claim 5 is also anticipated in view of the above stated arguments. With respect to granted claim 6 of the patentee the first opponent has relied on claim 20 of D3 which reads thus; Claim 20 of D3: A gypsum-based composite article comprising: a first gypsum layer made of a first gypsum; a second gypsum layer made of a second gypsum, said second layer being formed on said first layer; and a third layer made of electromagnetic wave shielding fibers, said third layer being interposed between and bonded to said first and second gypsum layers and being made in the form of a mesh. The first opponent has stated that claim 20 of D3 undoubtedly teaches the presence of first and second gypsum layers wherein third layer which is made out of glass fibers is sandwiched between these layers. And the first opponent has further relied on detailed description of D3, column 7, lines 37-40 which describes “The electromagnetic wave shielding fibers of the third layer are preferably made of electrical-insulating glass fibers coated with an electromagnetic wave shielding material”. In other words the middle layer is made out of glass fibers. And the first opponent has further relied on detailed description of D4, column 3, lines 30-37 which describes “Multiple layers of paper or card board and/or Fiberglas may be used or paper and/0r cardboard or Fiberglas may be sandwiched between plaster layers. In any case I prefer that the exterior be cast of a smooth mix comprising as a principal ingredient a self-setting plaster, which will with-v stand the elevated temperatures required for curing bullet proof tanks of rubber-like material”. In other words it is to say that fiber glass can be used as a sandwich layer between two gypsum layers. Hence claim 6 of the patentee is anticipated. The first opponent while attacking the granted claim 7 of the patentee has stated that since the said claim 7 is dependent on claim 4 it is also anticipated in view of the above arguments. The first opponent while attacking the granted claim 8 of the patentee has stated that since the said claim 8 is dependent on claim 4 it is also anticipated in view of the above arguments. To oppose the granted claim 9 of the patentee the first opponent has relied claim 22 of D3 and detailed description of D3 in column 7, lines 26-40 which are reproduced here.

Claim 22 of D3: An article according to claim 21, wherein said article is prepared by a method comprising the following steps of: (a) bonding said third layer to said first gypsum layer by means of an adhesive; (b) applying a slurry, which is a mixture of water and a soft gypsum plaster, to said third layer, said soft gypsum plaster being hardenable into said soft gypsum, such that said third layer is impregnated with said slurry and that said second gypsum layer is formed on said third layer; and (c) curing said second gypsum layer to produce said article. Detailed description of D3 in column 7, lines 26-40: As is seen from FIG. 12, there is provided a first exemplary gypsum-based composite article 70 comprising a first gypsum layer 72 made of a first gypsum, a second gypsum layer 74 made of a second gypsum, and a third layer 76 which is made of electromagnetic wave shielding fibers and in the form of a mesh. The first and second gypsum layers 72, 74 and the third layer 76 are bonded together to produce the article 70 in the form of integral body. It is preferable that the first gypsum is a hard gypsum having a compressive strength of from 240 to 700 kgf/cm2 and that the second gypsum is a soft gypsum having a compressive strength of from 90 to 170 kgf/cm2. The electromagnetic wave shielding fibers of the third layer are preferably made of electrical-insulating glass fibers coated with an electromagnetic wave shielding material. It is stated that D3 discloses the method of producing gypsum based composite article wherein the first and second layers are made of gypsum and the third layer is a sandwich layer which is made of glass fibers. Hence claim 9 of the patentee is anticipated. In reply statement the Patentee has stated that Patentee submits that D3 pertains to a gypsum board composite article reinforced with glass fiber. It does not disclose or teach the subject matter of the impugned invention more so, claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 i.e. the composition as claimed in claim I of the impugned patent or the uniform thickness of the fiber layer in the middle or the thickness of the middle layer or the thickness and length of the fiber and the combination of these as claimed in the impugned patent. Therefore, this does not enable one skilled in the art to perform the invention. Hence, the objections on this basis are without merit and denied as such. Further, as regards the objection citing D4 it is submitted that D4 pertains to multiple layers of paper or card board and/ or fiber glass sandwiched between plaster layers. This does not disclose or teach the inventive features of the impugned patent which are subject matter of the claims of the impugned patent in particular claims 1, 3, 6 and 7. It is not possible for a person skilled in the art to come up with the impugned patent on the basis of D4. An analysis of the specification and claims and the initiative features thereof in the impugned patent as already mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, would clearly establish this aspect. Therefore the objection on the ground of prior knowledge citing D3 and D4 is incorrect and without merit and the contrary averments are denied as such. While replying to the denial arguments of the Patentee the first opponent has stated that the composition and ornamental plaster mold and method for making the plaster mold of the impugned Patent are similar to the gypsum based composite article reinforced with glass fibers, its embodiments and method for producing the same as disclosed in D3. Invention of D3 relates to gypsum based composite article reinforced with glass fibers wherein the composition of glass fibers, gypsum material and water forms a similar composition as claimed in the impugned Patent.

Therefore, the features of D3 and the impugned Patent are similar. Further, it is submitted that the claim 3 of the impugned Patent merely provides a specific range of thickness and length of the fiber. Claim 3 of the impugned patent neither has any antecedent from preceding claims (i.e. claims 1 and 2) nor defines the purpose of the claimed fiber. The Patentee fails to disclose that the fiber claimed in claim 3 is related to the alleged invention of the impugned Patent. As regards claim 7 of the impugned Patent, it is submitted that the same talks about uniformity and thickness of 'reinforcing fiber layer'. It is submitted that nowhere, claims 6 and 7 talk about uniformity or thickness of middle layer or thickness or length of the fiber, which is being harped on by the Patentee. It is submitted that in the absence of any experimental data or laboratory results, claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are vague and unauthenticated. It is submitted that the Patentee has read the claims of D4 in isolation and is making frivolous and false statements. It is submitted that in the absence of any experimental data or laboratory results, claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are vague and unauthenticated. It is further submitted that the Patentee has failed to respond to the detailed analysis of the claims of the impugned Patent vis-a-vis prior art document D4 provided in the corresponding paragraph of the Written Statement. The Opposition Board has opined that Documents D1, D3-D4 as cited in statement opposition u/s 25(2(d) do not disclose any information about prior knowledge or prior use of impugned patent in India. Therefore, opposition under 25(2)(d) is not valid. CONCLUSION It is observed that the prior art undoubtedly teaches the first and second layers made out of gypsum and the middle sandwich layer can be a reinforcing layer made of glass fiber. When we look at the granted Claim 1 of the Patentee it is not clear whether the end product is made out of three layered structure wherein the middle layer is made out of the reinforcing material. The granted claim 1 of the Patentee only refers to a composition without specifying any layered structure. But when the subject matter of granted Claim 4 is read with the subject matter of Claim 1 it is concluded that the composition of claim 1 is used to prepare an ornamental plaster mold that contains a three layered structure wherein the middle layer is made out of the reinforcing material which is selected from the list as provided in the granted Claim 2 of the Patentee. Other than this specified structured product neither the description nor any claim other than the granted claim 4 teaches any other structured product. Hence it may be concluded that the Patentee is indeed interested in such a composition which ultimately utilized to prepare a product of claim 4 of the patentee. With respect to the percentages of each ingredient of the composition as claimed in the granted claim 1 is not specifically taught by any cited documents of the Patentee perhaps the quantum of water that is to be added to plaster of paris is known in the prior art because addition of water to plaster of paris or calcined gypsum is known to the person skilled in the art. The final decision under this objection is kept in abeyance till the conclusion is made for lack of inventive step, if any. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 25(2)(e): CLAIMS ARE OBVIOUS AND LACK OF INVENTIVE STEP: In addition to D1 to D4, the first opponent intends to rely on the following documents to oppose the impugned invention under obviousness and lack of inventive step. The relied documents are; D5: US 6237294 B1: D5 discloses decorative three dimensional panels and a method of producing the same.

D6: US 5100474 A: D6 discloses a glass fiber reinforced plaster composition and a method of making an article from reinforced plaster composition. D7: US 5342566 A: D7 discloses a method of manufacturing gypsum fiber board. The first opponent has requested to consider the arguments present as above for the cited documents D1 to D4 for the consideration of lack of inventive step for the impugned invention. For the sake of brevity those arguments are not reproduced here. The first opponent in opposing the subject matter of granted claims 1 and 2 of the patentee has drawn the attention to the detailed description of D5 of column 7, lines 12-29 which states that, “The hardenable material may be any cementitious or non-cementitious compound, preferably but not limited to gypsum cement, plaster-of-Paris or an acrylic based compound. The material chosen will once again depend on the desired final texture as well as considerations of weight, wear and costs of the project. In a preferred embodiment an appropriate amount of gypsum cement is prepared by mixing water and gypsum cement in an approximate ratio of one part water to four parts gypsum cement, said mixture being stirred or agitated until all lumps have dissolved as shown in FIG. 5, resulting in a thick creamy consistency. The mixture is then poured into the mold cavity and spread with a tool or utensil to cover the entire surface area as shown in FIGS. 6 and 7. The Reinforcing Means Thirdly, a reinforcing means is placed on the wet surface and worked into the mixture. The reinforcing means serves to bind the hardenable mixture into a sheet-like material and impart flexiblity to the finished product so that the final panel is easy to manipulate and may even be used on curved surfaces. There are many synthetic or natural materials which may be used for this purpose including but not limited to burlap, glass fiber, nylon, screens or any mesh-like substance.” Further attention was drawn to claim 4 of D5 which reads thus: “The method according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing means is selected from burlap, glass fiber, screen, jute, cloth or nylon.” It was argued that upon reading the above extracts of D5 it is understood that water and gypsum is taken in 1:4 ratio to get a uniform thick creamy consistency and reinforcing material is added to impart flexibility to the finished product so that the final panel is easy to manipulate and may even be used on curved surfaces. Therefore all the three layers and their purposes have been detailed in D5 hence the impugned invention lacks inventive step. Further the first opponent has referred to claim 14 of D6 which reads as: “A method according to one of claims 8 and 12-13 wherein the fiber reinforcement consists of glass fibers.” Therefore it was argued that glass fibers are used as reinforcing materials which is equivalent to middle layer of the patentee’s invention. Therefore impugned patent lacks inventive step. Further the first opponent has referred to claim 60 of D 7 which reads as: “The method of claim 58 wherein the fibers include fiberglass fibers.” Therefore it was argued that glass fibers are used as reinforcing materials which is equivalent to middle layer of the patentee’s invention. Therefore impugned patent lacks inventive step.

The first opponent in opposing the subject matter of granted claim 4 of the patentee has drawn the attention to the claims 5 and 6 of D 5 which reads as: Claim 5 of D5 A flexible three-dimensional panel produced by: (a) filling a single cavity open tray mold comprising a plurality of indentations in the shape of natural materials, with a fluent hardening material, wherein said hardening material is selected from gypsum cement, plaster-of-Paris, or an acrylic based compound, and wherein said mold comprises a continuous pattern of a natural material or materials in relief; (b) totally submerging a reinforcing means within the hardening material; (c) brushing the surface of the hardening material to further submerge said reinforcing means; and (d) de-molding the hardened panel, thereby producing a flexible panel consisting of a one piece unit of molded formations of the same material with said reinforcing means spanning the panel. Claim 6 of D5 6. A panel according to claim 5 wherein, after submerging the reinforcing means, said panel is produced by additionally pouring another layer of hardening material over the reinforcing means. With the above referenced material the first opponent has argued that D 5 defines reinforcing as a means of submerging the reinforced material within the hardening material, that is, plaster of paris or gypsum cement and thereafter, an additional layer of hardening material is poured over the reinforcing means. Therefore it is concluded that the layer of glass fiber sandwiched between two layers of plaster of paris as claimed in the granted claim 4 of the patentee, hence the impugned invention is obvious. Further the first opponent has referred to the description of D6, column 1 lines 59-66; column 3, lines 44-55 and column 4, lines 56-63 which are reproduced as hereunder. Column 1 lines 59-66; A preferred embodiment of the invention provides a glass-fibre reinforced plaster composition comprising a settable, fluid mix of between 55% and 65% of a plaster, between 20% and 30% by weight of mix of a water-based phenol formaldehyde resin, between 3% and 5% by weight of mix of an acid hardener, between 7% and 13% by weight of mix of water, and not less than 10% by weight of the mix of a glass fibre reinforcement. Column 3, lines 44-55 The invention also describes the process for producing a glass fibre reinforced product, the process comprising preparing a settable fluid mix as defined above, supplying the mix under pressure to a spraying unit, simultaneously spraying the fluid mix as defined above, simultaneously spraying the fluid mix and fibre reinforcement of a predetermined length and in a predetermined proportion to the quantity by weight of the fluid mix, onto a mould surface to build up a layer of material to a predetermined thickness and consolidating the surface of the layer of compaction before building up a successive layer of material Column 4, lines 56-63 It is within the ambit of the present invention that the first layer applied to the mould, which is intended to form the exterior surface of the end product, may be of a different composition, possibly omitting the

glass fibres and containing, for example, particular colour pigments or crushed stone fillers, which is sprayed on to form the first layer prior to subsequently spraying the layers incorporated the glass fibre reinforcement. The first opponent has argued that a fluid mix comprising gypsum plaster, water, reinforcing means is sprayed on the mould and a different composition including gypsum plaster and water is sprayed prior to spraying of fluid mix. Therefore, it is apparent to a person skilled in the art to prepare a mold wherein a layer of reinforcing means is interposed between two layers of plaster, hence the impugned invention lacks inventive step. Referring to the granted claim 5 of the patentee the first opponent has argued that since claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 of the patentee the subject matter of claim 5 is also anticipated against the arguments against the granted claim 4 of the patentee. It is further argued that the granted claim 6 also dependent on claim 4 of the patentee but still the first opponent desires to rely on the detailed description of D5; Column 5, lines 11-15; Column 7, lines 1-12; and Column 7, lines 20-65 which is reproduced as hereunder: Column 5, lines 11-15; The hardening material may be poured in one step and the reinforcing means inserted into the middle, or two steps wherein the second layer is poured over the reinforcing means lying on the first surface, depending on the design of the application Column 7, lines 1-12; The Hardening Material: Facing A hardenable material is prepared and poured into the mold, as shown in FIGS. 5 to 7, to approximately two thirds of its volume in order to become the facing material once set. The hardening material can be of many types, the defining characteristics include the fact that, within a practical period of time, the material hardens and does not crumble or otherwise significantly loose its integrity over the lifetime of the panel. Interior surfaces may crack in such a manner to further add to its “realistic” appearance, as long as the integrity is maintained so material does not fall off. The hardenable material may be any cementitious or non-cementitious compound, preferably but not limited to gypsum cement, plaster-of-Paris or an acrylic based compound. The material chosen will once again depend on the desired final texture as well as considerations of weight, wear and costs of the project. Column 7, lines 20-65 The Reinforcing Means Thirdly, a reinforcing means is placed on the wet surface and worked into the mixture. The reinforcing means serves to bind the hardenable mixture into a sheet-like material and impart flexiblity to the finished product so that the final panel is easy to manipulate and may even be used on curved surfaces. There are many synthetic or natural materials which may be used for this purpose including but not limited to burlap, glass fiber, nylon, screens or any mesh-like substance. Although panels can be made without overhang, in a preferred embodiment the reinforcing material is cut to a dimension ensuring a minimum of 10 cm overhang around the entire mold, as illustrated by 50 in FIGS. 8-12 and 14-16. In certain designs, such as for an exterior surface, it may be preferable to attache the reinforcing means in such a manner that it is exposed surrounding each “3-dimensional face piece”. This will allow a grout-type material to be filled-in after the panel is hung on a wall. Using FIG. 10 to illustrate, this would be

accomplished by only filing in the protruding face pieces of the mold 11′ (such as the spaces simulating brick or stone) and attaching the supporting means to the hardenable material occupying these spaces. In the example illustrated in FIG. 10, the area simulating mortar 12 would be replaced by supporting means. In a preferred embodiment a piece of burlap 50 is used as the reinforcing agent. It is stretched over the entire surface area, leaving a 10 cm overlap on all sides, and is submerged using a whisk brush, as illustrated in FIG. 8 to smooth out the gypsum cement to an even layer throughout the cavity. One must be careful to ensure that the burlap is not submerged to the point that it will be visible on the surface of the finished product. The Hardening Material: Backing The backside of the panels can be generated in one or two manners, either by submerging the reinforcing means 50 sufficiently that it becomes completely covered by hardenable material 55 seeping through the spaces in the reinforcing means as shown in FIG. 8, or another layer of hardenable material can be poured on top of the reinforcing means. FIG. 8 illustrates the first method wherein sufficient hardenable material 50 has been placed into the mold to allow for complete immersion of the reinforcing means. The surface is then brushed, prior to hardening. With the above referenced material the first opponent has argued that D 5 defines reinforcing as a means of submerging the reinforced material within the hardening material, that is, plaster of paris or gypsum cement and thereafter, an additional layer of hardening material is poured over the reinforcing means. Therefore it is concluded that the layer of glass fiber sandwiched between two layers of plaster of paris as claimed in the granted claim 6 of the patentee, hence the impugned invention is obvious. Referring to the granted claim 7 of the patentee the first opponent has argued that since claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 of the patentee the subject matter of claim 7 is also anticipated against the arguments against the granted claim 4 of the patentee. Referring to the granted claim 8 of the patentee the first opponent has argued that since claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 of the patentee the subject matter of claim 5 is also anticipated against the arguments against the granted claim 8 of the patentee. To oppose claim 9 under the lack of inventive step, in addition to the above arguments the first opponent has drawn the attention to claims 1 and 2 of D5 which read as: Claim 1 of D5; A method for the manufacture of decorative panels consisting of: (a) filling a single cavity open tray mold, comprising a plurality of indentations in the shape of natural materials, with a fluent hardening material wherein said hardening material is selected from gypsum cement, plaster-of-Paris, or an acrylic based compound, and wherein said mold comprises a continuous pattern of a natural material or materials in relief; (b) totally submerging a reinforcing means within the hardening material; (c) brushing the surface of the hardening material to further submerge said reinforcing means; and (d) de-molding the hardened panel, thereby producing a flexible panel consisting of a one piece unit of molded formations of the same material with said reinforcing means spanning the panel. Claim 2 of D5:

The method according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing means is further submerged in the hardening material by pouring a second layer of hardening material over the reinforcing means prior to de-molding the panel. It is argued with the above reference that D5 teaches about pouring gypsum cement or plaster of paris onto a mold having indentations, then submerging the reinforcing material followed by pouring another layer of hardening material. This is akin to the process of claim 9 of the patentee and hence lacks inventive step. Further attention is drawn to claims 8 and 15 of D6 which reads as: Claim 8 of D6: A method of making an article from a reinforced plaster composition comprising; (i) a settable fluid mix containing gypsum plaster, a hardenable, water based organic resin, a hardening agent for curing the resin, a control agent for controlling the pot life and setting time of the fluid mix, an antifoaming agent in an amount effective to prevent foaming of the mix, and water in an amount effective to set the plaster, and (ii) a chopped fibre reinforcement, said method comprising: a. storing the fluid mix in a storage means therefor, b. providing a means for spraying a stream of the fluid mix from the storage means, c. providing a means for spraying a stream of the chopped fibre reinforcement, d. simultaneously spraying a stream of the fluid mix and a stream of the chopped fibre reinforcement onto a mould surface thereby forming a first-applied layer of the combined composition onto the mold surface, e. compacting and thereby consolidating the first-applied layer and removing entrapped gas therefrom, f. similarly applying and compacting successive layers of the combined composition until an article thickness is obtained, and g. allowing the thus produced layered composition to harden before removing the article from the mould. Claim 15 of D6: A method according to claim 11, wherein a base layer is applied prior to said first-applied layer, said base layer formed by spraying a layer of the fluid mix without including chopped fibre reinforcement therein. With the above reference it is argued that according to D6 an article is made from a reinforced plaster composition. Firstly, a fluid mix comprising gypsum plaster, a hardenable, water based organic resin, a hardening agent for curing the resin, a control agent, an antifoaming agent and water is prepared. The fluid mix and chopped fiber reinforcement are sprayed simultaneously onto a mold to form a first applied layer. A base layer comprising of fluid mix without including the chopped fiber reinforcement is applied onto the mold prior to the first applied layer. It is apparent to a person skilled in the art from the method claimed in claim 8 and claim 15 of D6 to conceive a method of making ornamental plaster mold wherein a layer of reinforcing means is placed between the two plaster layers instead of spraying simultaneously the reinforcing means and the gypsum plaster in a mold. Therefore claim 9 of the patentee lacks inventive step. Further attention is drawn to claims 54 of D7 which reads as: A method of producing gypsum fiber board comprising the steps of:

mixing a predetermined amount of fibers, an absorbent restricting the adhesion of the fibers to one another to inhibit balling of the fibers, and water to prepare a supply of wetted loose fibers and absorbent; mixing a supply of the wetted loose fibers and absorbent with a predetermined amount of dry calcined gypsum to form a first composition; wherein an accelerator additive is added to one of the fibers, absorbent, water and gypsum to speed the setting of the gypsum of the first composition; layering the first composition into a first matt layer having a substantially uniform consistency; mixing a low density porous particle material with water to form a supply of wetted low density particles; mixing the wetted low density porous particles with a predetermined amount of dry gypsum to form a second composition; layering the second composition over the first matt layer to form a second layer having a substantially uniform consistency; mixing a supply of wetted loose fibers with a predetermined amount of dry calcined gypsum to form a third composition; layering the third composition over the second layer to form a third layer having a substantially uniform consistency; compressing the three layers to form a board; and drying the board to provide a finished board of substantially uniform density. With reference to D7 the first opponent has argued that D7 discloses the method of producing gypsum fiber board. Initially, a composition comprising wetted loose fibers, absorbent, dry calcined gypsum and water is prepared. This composition is layered into a first matt layer and thereafter a second composition comprising low density porous articles and dry gypsum is layered over the first matt layer to form a second layer. A third composition of wetted loose fibers and dry calcined gypsum is poured over the second layer to form a third layer. Therefore it is argued that it is apparent to the person skilled in the art to sandwich the reinforcing layer in between two gypsum layers and the granted claim 9 of the patentee lacks inventive step. In reply to the first opponent arguments the Patentee has stated that none of the documents D5,D6, D7 deal with the inventive features of impugned patent. D5 does not pertain to the composition as in claim 1 or the uniform thickness of the middle reinforcing fibre layer or the range of thickness of the middle layer or a combination of these with the thickness and length of the fibre as in claim 3 of the impugned patent. Therefore, even mossaicing of D5, D6 and D7 or mosaicing them with any other prior art document, it is not possible for a person skilled in the art to come up with the composition as in claim 1, the uniform reinforcing middle fibre layer or its range of thickness or its combination with the length and diameter of the fibre as in claims 6,7 and 3 respectively. All these documents put together do not disclose the said inventive features nor do they teach the impugned invention nor do they enable a person skilled in the art to come up with the present invention, whose inventive features are unique and novel and totally different from the disclosures in these prior art specifications. Further upon consideration of the inventive features or the inventive step in the impugned patent which have already been dealt with in detail in the preceding paragraphs with the said prior art documents and the claims there, it is clear that that the impugned patent and its claims are not obvious and on the contrary have the inventive features as averred herein. Therefore, the objection on the ground of obviousness and lack of inventive steps is unsustainable and without merit and the contrary averments are all denied as such and also as misleading.

In their reply evidence the first opponent has stated that It is submitted that it is a well-established principle of Patent law that obviousness can also be judged on the basis of combined teachings of all cited prior arts. Upon an analysis of the complete specifications of D5, D6 and D7, respectively, it is discernible that the subject matter claimed in the impugned Patent is disclosed. The composition, ornamental plaster mold and method for making the plaster mold of the impugned Patent are similar to the composition, panel/product and the method of manufacture explicitly and/or implicitly disclosed in D5, D6 and D7. It is submitted that in the absence of any experimental data or laboratory results, claims 1, 3, 6 and 7 are vague and unauthenticated. Further, it is submitted that the Patentee has refrained from commenting on the submissions vis-a-vis claims 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9 of the impugned Patent in view of D5, D6 and D7 in the corresponding paragraph of the Written Statement. The Patentee has failed to explain as to how and in what way and manner, the complete specifications of D5, D6 and D7 are not applicable in this case. The Opposition Board has opined that All the opponent cited documents discussed three components those are claimed in patentee’s invention such as plaster of paris, fiber and water, even though above disclosures not discloses exact percentages of components of fiber , plaster of paris and water a person skilled in the art can modify the plaster mold composition by the teaching of cited documents D1-D7 to prepare the present plaster mold , Therefore the subject matter of claim 1 is obvious in view of D1- D7 as per section 2(1)(ja) of The Patents Act,1970 . Therefore, the opposition u/s 25(2)(e) is valid. CONCLUSION: The documents D1 to D7 as discussed above refers to a product comprising three layers at least wherein the middle layer consisting the reinforcement material. The reinforcement material is generally a fiber wherein the fiber needs to be understood as having many more times length of its width. It is further can be concluded that as name suggests that reinforcing material which is used is for strengthening the mold and flexibility of the mold, including curved molds. The cited document suggests the nature of reinforcing materials with respect to the desired effects that are associated with them. The next point to be noted is on how the reinforcing material is placed. Is it by way of submersion, or sprayed over the surface or by any other means. Unfortunately none of the cited documents did link on the manner of reinforcing versus enhancing flexural strength and non-crack formation which may lead to enhanced shelf life. In the absence of such specific information it ought to be concluded that the presence of reinforcing material increases the flexural strength of the given mold made of either plaster of paris or gypsum cement. It is expected from the prior art that a mere presence of reinforcing material in the form of fibers indeed enhances the flexural strength irrespective of manner of introducing the reinforcing material before casting and drying of a mold. Therefore it has to be understood that a person skilled in the art can fairly conclude that a mold as manufactured with the same or different hardening materials or same hardening material with different compositions as different layered products wherein the reinforcing material is either submerged or sprayed and placed in between the hardenable material layers enhances the flexural strength and capable of being used for different purposes. Hence it is concluded that the Patentee’s subject matter of all the claims is obvious and lacks inventive skill in the absence of any unexpected effect. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 25(2)(f): NOT AN INVENTION OR NOT PATENTABLE UNDER THE ACT

The first opponent has reiterated that the impugned invention in view of the above arguments lacks Novelty and Inventive step and therefore do not satisfy the requirements of the provisions of the Section 2(1)(j) and (ja0 of the Patents Act. For the brevity sake the above arguments are not repeated here. Further the first opponent has stated that the composition as claimed in claim 1 of the Patentee is related to a mere admixture of plaster of paris, reinforcing material and water in the ratio as mentioned therein and does not exhibit any synergistic effect but the resulting admixture exhibits only in the aggregation of properties. The said composition shows exactly the same properties that are expected, that is, good tensile strength and bending strength. Hence for not satisfying the requirements of the provisions of the Section 3(e) of the Patents Act the impugned invention should have not been granted. Therefore as a corrective measure patent granted shall be revoked. In Reply Statement the Patentee has stated that the resultant composition of the invention as in claim 1, obtained as a result is not an aggregation) of the properties of the components separately viz., plaster of paris, water or reinforcing fibre. The result of the combination is totally different. For eg. Water has a no stick property, similarly plaster of paris is a power and cannot be used as a binding agent. Similarly the reinforcing fiber as such cannot be used as such for the making of cornices etc., But the combination serves the purpose of making beautiful and decorative cornices etc., in the ceiling and juncture of ceiling and wall, achieved because of the binding property of the combination and the strength of the same achieved as detailed in the specification. Therefore, the result of the composition is as a strong binder whereas that of all its independent components is not so. Still further, the composition is an invention which has a stronger binding action for ornamental plaster moulds, has an improved life time, does not develop hair line cracks, there is no breakage and hence stronger than the conventional moulds not made by this process/ combination. ln view of the inventive features already dealt with in detail above, the impugned patent fulfils requirements of Section 2(1)(j) and 2(1)(ja) of the Act. Therefore the contrary averments in this regard are denied as incorrect and misleading and hence the objection on this ground is unsustainable. The first opponent in their reply evidence has stated that It is submitted that plaster of paris is a building material used for coating walls and ceilings. It is manufactured as a dry powder and is mixed with water to form a paste when used. The reaction with water liberates heat through crystallization and the hydrated plaster then hardens. These characteristics make plaster suitable for finishing, rather than serve as a load-bearing material. As regards reinforcing fiber, it is submitted that the Patentee's averments do not pertain to properties of reinforcing fiber but rather, pertain to its use or utility. These averments do not offer any assistance to his case and are highly misplaced. In any case, it is a known fact that reinforcing fiber is used to provide strength. It is submitted that the properties of water, plaster of paris and reinforcing fiber are proven and known scientific facts. Thus, it is apparent that the Patentee is making incorrect and misleading averments. It is a known fact that combination of water, plaster of paris and reinforcing fiber serves the purpose of making decorative cornices, etc. in ceilings and junctures of ceilings and walls. The impugned Patent fails to disclose how and in what manner the claimed composition achieves binding property or strength. In the absence of any laboratory data or experimental results, it is baseless on part of the Patentee to aver or claim that the composition is a strong binder or an invention or has a stronger binding action for ornamental plaster moulds or an improved life or does not develop hair line cracks or breakage or is stronger than conventional moulds as alleged or at all. It is submitted that the impugned Patent does not disclose any 'new' method or process or combination or composition. It is submitted that there is

nothing in the specification of the impugned Patent which goes to show that resulting composition is exhibiting technical advancement from other compositions of same components in the prior arts. Moreover, there is no comparative data in the specification to demonstrate any new or unexpected property or synergistic effect of the resulting composition as compared to the compositions disclosed in the prior arts. It is submitted that the averments made by the Patentee regarding totally different properties of the impugned composition are fanciful and baseless without any supportive evidence in the specification of the impugned Patent and do not merit any consideration. The Opposition Board has opined that in view of the disclosures of D1-D7, combination of water, plaster of paris and reinforcing fiber serves the purpose of making decorative cornices, etc. in ceilings and junctures of ceilings and walls. In the absence of any laboratory data or experimental results which can show synergistic effect, opposition under 25(2) (f) is valid in light of section 3(e) of Act. CONCLUSION: The Patentee’s arguments are not persuasive because if the arguments made by the Patentee is to be understood as Novel, Inventive and does not fall within the scope of the Section 3(e) of the Act then if any person applies for a patent for a solidified concrete block wherein cement, water and aggregate are added in a given ratio to obtain the said solidified concrete should be granted with patent right. The Act says any composition is patentable under the provisions of the Section 3(e) of the Act unless the said composition shall pass the tests for Novelty, and Inventive first and then in addition should exhibit an unexpected property. In the impugned patent except the ratio as disclosed in claim 1 the ingredients viz., plaster of paris, water and reinforcing material are known and upon mixing in a given ratio shall exhibit flexural and bending strength is also known. The impugned patent just discloses the same properties plus states that that anti-crack property is also present. Assuming that according to the prior art the plaster of paris mold once prepared cracks immediately then the described ornamental articles should not have existed. Further assuming that the cracks may develop after some time, may be from few months to few years and because of this the prior art products has limited shelf life then there should be some evidential indication that the products of the impugned invention has extended shelf life. In absence of an evidential support in the impugned patent it is difficult to believe the Patentee’s argument that the products of the Patentee have extended shelf life apart from exhibiting the enhanced flexural strength. Hence this ground of objection has to be considered for revocation of patent. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 25(2)(g): INSUFFICIENT DISCLOSURE Relaying on the provisions of the Section 10(4) of the Act, the first opponent has stated that under the said section every complete specification shall fully and completely describe the invention and its operation or use and the method by which it is to be performed and it shall also disclose the best mode of performing the invention known to the applicant. It is respectfully submitted that the impugned Patent claims a composition for making ornamental plaster mold containing plaster of paris between 25% to 75%, reinforcing fiber between 1 and 14% and water between 5% and 45%. Whereas, the detailed description mentions the composition containing plaster of paris between 25% to 99.99%, reinforcing fiber between 0.001 and 15% and water between

0.001% and 75%. Therefore, claim 1 of the impugned Patent is not supported by the disclosure given in the complete specification as the claims are always read in light of the complete specification. Further, the composition claimed in the independent claim 1 of the impugned Patent does not describe the units of the content used of each of the components i.e. plaster of paris, reinforcing material and water for preparing the composition. This makes the independent claim 1 vague. The claims that lack definiteness are mentioned below: Claim 2 discloses the reinforcing fiber used for preparing the composition and the same claim 2 does not follow antecedent as claim I talks about reinforcing material. Claim 3 of the patent discloses thickness and length of "the fiber". The claim does not have antecedent from any of the previous claim/s and does not elucidates any technical significance related to the claimed subject matter in the impugned Patent. Claim 5 (dependent on claim 4) discloses the top layer which is the outer decorative surface for facing the interior of the room. Claim 5 does not have any antecedent from claim 4, as claim 4 discloses the first layer and third layer. Claim 6 (dependent on claim 4) discloses the sandwiched middle layer which is the reinforcing material. Claim 6 does not have any antecedent from claim 4, as claim 4 does not disclose the middle layer. Claim 7 (dependent on claim 4) discloses the reinforcing fiber layer and its thickness. Claim 7 does not have any antecedent from claim 4, as claim 4 discloses the reinforced material. Similarly, Claim 8 (dependent on claim 4) discloses the reinforcing fiber and it does not have any antecedent from claim 4, as claim 4 is disclosing the reinforced material. Apart from the fact that the claimed composition is known in the art, there is no disclosure in the complete specification of the impugned Patent to show how the use of such known materials provides new results. Therefore, it is clear that the complete specification does not describe the invention sufficiently and clearly. In their reply to the above objection the Patentee has stated that the specifications deals with all those aspects required for purpose of the claims. Further, the units of the contents are not the subject of the impugned patent. On the contrary, it is the proportion of the three constituents in which ever unit it may be, that is what the inventive feature is. Therefore the objection on this ground is devoid of any merit and denied as such. The proportion of the three ingredients has been clearly mentioned in a said range. When this is so it is totally incorrect on the part of the opponent to allege that claim I is vague. Further, the claims 2 to 7 arc very clear and the range in units wherever required has been clearly mentioned. When this is so, it is totally incorrect on the part of the opponent to aver that the claims lack definiteness. That apart, a reading of the claims would establish this fact and the thing speaks for itself i.e. res-ipso-loquiter, therefore the contrary averments are denied as incorrect and without merit. In reply to the Patentee’s contention the first opponent has replied and stated that a unit is 'a quantity used as a standard of measurement'. In the absence of unit of measurement, a person skilled in the art would not be able to make the composition claimed in the impugned Patent. The Patentee has failed to disclose whether the range percentage of the components of the composition claimed in the impugned

Patent is on weight/weight (w/w) or volume/volume (v/v) basis or weight/volume (w/v) or any other basis. As such, claim I of the impugned Patent is vague. It is denied that claims 2 to 7 of the impugned Patent are clear or do not lack definiteness or that a reading of the claims establish this fact or speaks for itself as alleged or at all. The Opposition Board has opined that the Patentee has failed to disclose whether the range percentage of the components of the composition claimed in the impugned Patent is on weight/weight (w/w) or volume/volume (v/v) basis or weight/volume (w/v) or any other basis. As such, claim 1 of the impugned Patent is vague. The subject matter of Claim-2 of the present application teaches the reinforcing fiber is synthetic fiber, coir fiber, jute fiber and so on, preferably synthetic fiber or coir fiber; synthetic fiber is polymer, cross linked polymer, homopolymer, copolymer or mixture thereof. However the patentee failed to show the experimental examples to carry out the invention using above defined fibers of claim 2. Claims 3 to 9 of the impugned Patent are not clear or lack definiteness. This does not allow the skilled person to carry out the invention in the whole scope without undue burden in order to test which fibers work and which do not and which proportion works. CONCLUSION: Though the Patentee has not mentioned any unit viz., w/w, w/v or v/v in the granted claim 1 since the said claim teaches on percentages it is agreed with the Patentee’s version that the word “Percentage” will take care of the proportion of the ingredients. For a person skilled in the art while perusing the granted claim 1 can conclude that out of three ingredients, viz., plaster of paris and reinforcing material are solids, hence cannot be used w/v or v/v units. Water being liquid can be used by any of the unit. Whatever it may the given percentages will take care because the final product has to be rounded to 100. But the point is the granted claim 1 is silent on whether the given percentages are of the final composition. In this absence generally it is to be understood that it is with respect to the w/w of the final composition. Hence the granted Claim 1 is not considered as vague. It is agreed with the view of the first opponent that in the description of the impugned patent under the caption “Summary of the Invention”, the Patentee has specified the ranges of all the three ingredients, viz., plaster of paris, reinforcing material and water in the ratio of 25% to 99.99%, 0.001% to 15% and 0.001% to 75% respectively. But at the same time the Patentee in the following paragraph has specified the claimed percentages of the three ingredients. The Patentee has claimed the percentages as mentioned in the description. The range percentage which is not claimed does not get any patent protection. Hence one cannot conclude that the subject matter of granted claims 1 and 2 indeed get support from the description. The observations made by the first opponent with respect to other claims is not serious enough to prejudice the revocation of patent as it is the normal way of drafting the claims. The words or phrases “first layer” and “top layer” can be corrected or can be understood that one replaces the other. By raising such objection what the first opponent wants to prove is not clear. Hence this objection is not valid. OPPOSITION PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 25(2)(h): FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE ACT The first opponent appears to have wrongly objected the impugned patent under this section. The provision of 25(2)(h) deals with the provision of informing the patent office with respect to foreign filing particulars by filing Form-3, if the applicant [herein Patentee] for patent has filed in foreign countries for substantially same invention in pursuance of obtaining a patent right in those countries. There is a stream lined procedure as laid in the Section 8 of the Act to inform the Patent Office with the requisite

particulars. On perusal of the application for patent of the impugned patent application it is understood that the Patentee has not applied in any country other than India. The first opponent has strangely argued that this section deals with the “FALSE INFORMATION” which is incorrect. The first opponent has argued that the Form-1 is not properly filled with the requisite information and not properly replied to the First Examination Report [FER]. The first opponent has filed Annexures J and K which are the photo copies of the FER and reply to FER respectively. The arguments made by the first opponent are not discussed here as they are not relevant under this ground of opposition. The Opposition Board has opined that: i)As per rule 13(6) of Act, Form-5 is not required when an ordinary application filed along with Complete specification. ii) section 7(3) of the act cannot be assessed under section 25(2) (h) as section 25(2)(h) relevant for assessing Section 8. iii) Patentee has been failed to respond to the Objection Nos. 7 and 8 of the FER as given in reply evidence. Therefore, Patentee has not met requirements of section 8 and rule 12 of Patents Act. Hence opposition under section 25(2) (h) is valid. CONCLUSION: The objection raised under the provisions of the Section 25(2)(h) is incorrect and therefore the objection is invalid. Finally the Opposition Board has opined that “In view of above findings, the opposition board jointly recommending for REVOCATION of the Patent no. 266332 under sections 25(2) (b), 25(2)(e), 25(2)(f), 25(2)(g),25(2)(h).” THE FINAL CONCLUSION WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST OPPONENT: After careful consideration of the arguments made by the first opponent and the patentee under the provisions the Sections 25(2)(b); combined arguments under the provisions of the Sections 25(2)(d) & (e); and under the Section 25(2)(f) it is decided to revoke the patent which is granted with the patent number 266332. THE SECOND OPPONENT: P.SUNIL The second opponent in his Notice for Opposition has relayed on Section 64 for revocation of the impugned patent. This is not the relevant section for filing a Post-grant Opposition. However since no objection was raised by the Patentee, the Opposition Board has equated the grounds of opposition under Section 64 of the Act with the relevant grounds of opposition under the Section 25(2) of the Act. In this decision too, only the relevant grounds that are applicable under the grounds of opposition of the Section 25(2) are dealt with. The second opponent has relied on the grounds of the Sections 25(2)(f); 25(2)(b); 25(2)(e) and the grounds as mentioned in 64(2); 64(g); 64(j); 64(k) of the Act. However the ground as specified under the Section 64(k) of the Act is referring to the provisions of the Sections 3 and 4 of the Act can be clubbed under the provisions of the Section 25(2)(f) which refers to non allowability of the invention for not falling within the definition of the “Invention” as defined in the Section 2(1)(j) and (ja) of the Act.

The second opponent stated that the claims of the impugned invention are not Novel for the reason that the process and product of the Patentee have been known to mankind since Roman times and organic materials such as hair were employed for reinforcement. Further, a well-known construction material known as Jute Scrim also known as hessian is available commercially for reinforcing plasters. The mesh of jute scrim provides an identical presentation to the alleged invention, in that once applied to the first layer of plaster, it provides uniform, striped and cross linked fiber. It is further stated that the second opponent’s products are available for the last 50 years that includes imported products. Therefore it was stated that the Patentee has misled the Controller with respect to Novelty and Inventive step and obtained a patent right. The second opponent has obtained a technical opinion from IP Dome strategy Advisors Pvt. Ltd who have provided a patent invalidation report and submitted as an evidential support for his statement of opposition. The said patent invalidation report does a claim mapping by relaying on the following 12 citations. US 323110; US 20080152945; US 1430481; US 1670557; WO 2007059132; US 1736294; GB 2053184; EP 697382; US 5741844; US 5441585; WO 200805242; and US 6,228,507. US Patent No. 323110 dated 28.07.1885 discloses the method of construction of cornice i.e., an ornamental plaster mould for installation at the juncture of a ceiling and the wall. US Patent No. 323110 is silent about ratio of components. However, a person skilled in that art can optimize the proportion of components to make a sandwich pattern of present composite in an obvious manner. As sandwiched pattern of composite is disclosed in fig.1, claim 1 of US Patent No. 323110 and patentee has not provided any data which can show/prove improved life time, strength of the composite in comparison with prior art US Patent No. 323110. Application No. US20080152945 A1 having title of the invention as "Fiber reinforced gypsum plaster discloses a gypsum-containing panel and a method of making it are disclosed including at least one facing layer having a first polymer that is reinforced with reinforcing fibers and a gypsum core that has a second polymer in a second polymer matrix interwoven with a gypsum matrix. The first polymer in the facing layer and said second polymer matrix in said gypsum core form a continuous polymer matrix. Document US 1430481 and US 1670557 discloses the ornamental composition comprising plaster material and cornice and water but it does not discloses sandwich ornamental mold and percentages of components. Document WO2007059132 discloses a polymeric fibrous nonwoven liner for gypsum board having an improved balance of strength and wet bond strength, wherein the liner is thermally bonded and includes a mixture of lower-melting binder fibers and higher-melting fibers and the liner contacting the gypsum composition is mechanically worked to open up the pore structure and increase the bulk of a layer of the fibers on the mechanically worked surface to increase the penetration of the gypsum composition, thus increasing the wet adhesion between the gypsum composition and the liner, but it does not discloses sandwich ornamental mold comprising first and second layers are plaster of paris and middle is fiber and also composition percentages of components. GB 2053184 discloses a composition comprises a water settable plaster, water, a polymeric material, and a fibrous reinforcing material. The polymeric material may be polyvinyl acetate, styrene butadienes, acrylics, polyesters, epoxies or other resinous or rubber band materials. But it does not disclose sandwich ornamental mold and percentages of components. EP 697382 discloses an acoustical tile composition based on a gypsum/cellulosic fiber composition which can replace all or a portion of the mineral wool normally present in acoustical ceiling tiles. The gypsum/cellulosic fiber composition is combined with a lightweight aggregate material and a binder to form a composition which is used in a water-felting process to manufacture acoustical ceiling tiles and panels. The preferred source of the cellulosic fiber is a composite gypsum/cellulose fiber material which is prepared by mixing

the gypsum and cellulosic fiber material with sufficient water to form dilute slurry. But it does not disclose sandwich like ornamental mold and percentages of components. Document US 5741844 discloses a coating composition giving a fresco-like appearance when mixed with a cement based plaster comprises a latex polymer binder, acrylic polymer binder, or two acrylic polymer cross-linking binders, particulate matter and chemical agents. The plaster composition preferably comprises 35 to 45 percent by weight cement based plaster; 50 to 60 percent by weight coating composition, 2 to 8 percent by weight colorant. But it does not disclose sandwich like ornamental mold. WO 200805242 discloses a gypsum-containing panel and a method of making it are disclosed including at least one facing layer having a first polymer that is reinforced with reinforcing fibers and a gypsum core that has a second polymer in a second polymer matrix interwoven with a gypsum matrix. The first polymer in the facing layer and said second polymer matrix in said gypsum core form a continuous polymer matrix. But it does not disclose sandwich like ornamental mold but it is continuous polymer matrix. Document US 1736294 discloses a plaster composition for building purposes comprising about one part of plaster of Paris, about one quarter part of asbestos powder; about one-half-part of sawdust; and a sufficient quantity of water to procure a mixture, but it is silent about fiber, therefore is irrelevant. Document US 6,228,507 discloses a prefabricated crown molding strip designed to facilitate one-person installation and composed of plaster that is reinforced by two layers of fiber reinforcement, one of bulk fiberglass intermixed throughout the outer portion of the strip and the ornamentation thereon and a second of a sheet of fiberglass netting generally centrally located as a spine in the strip and substantially coextensive therewith. Two side surfaces of the strip are disposed generally in perpendicular planes for engagement with a wall and a ceiling, and have patterns of longitudinally extending ribs and grooves of predetermined depths for facilitating adhesive mounting of the strip, and also facilitating selective removal of plaster to accommodate irregularities on supporting surfaces. Document US5441585 discloses a machinable plaster prepared from a blend of water, plaster of paris and polyvinyl acetate. Making a pattern where the blend is poured into a form and after solidification is cut to produce the pattern. The machinable plaster does not dust when cut and can withstand moderate temperatures without softening. The second opponent has argued that the impugned invention is frivolous in nature and attracts the provisions of the Section 3(e) of the Act. It was further argued that the description of the impugned invention is not sufficiently disclosed. To support these arguments the second opponent has stated that extreme ranges of the three ingredients are claimed in the granted claim 1 of the Patentee without any evidential support in the description. Hence the granted claim 1 is vague. Attention is drawn to the reply filed by the Patentee as a response to the FER against the cited document WO’242 by the patent office wherein the Patentee has stated that in WO’242 patent the polymeric materials used for reinforcement of the Gypsum Panel are not in a different layer and are not linked by a chemical bond. With respect to the WO200759132 which was cited by the Patent Office the second opponent has stated that the said prior art discloses a polymeric fibrous nonwoven liner for gypsum board having an improved balance of strength and wet bond strength, wherein the liner is thermally bonded and includes a mixture of lower-melting binder fibers and higher-melting fibers and the liner contacting the gypsum composition is mechanically worked to open up the pore structure and increase the bulk of a layer of the fibers on the mechanically worked surface to increase the penetration of the gypsum composition, thus increasing the wet adhesion between the gypsum composition and the liner. Now the contention of the second opponent is that such elaborate technical description is missing in the description of the impugned patent. Therefore in the absence any technical evidential proof the said impugned patent is defective and not sufficiently disclosed. For not disclosing sufficient information the impugned patent does not satisfy the requirements of the Section 10(4) and therefore liable to be

revoked. In reply to this the Patentee has stated that WO’132 is related to a gypsum board liner where gypsum is sandwiched between fiber sheets to prevent delamination and to have good dry and wet adhesion properties of the board. WO’132 patent disclosed various fiber sheets for lamination which is different from the present invention. Therefore subject matter of WO’132 cannot be compared with the Patentee’s invention and the description of the Patentee’s patent is sufficiently disclosed with respect to the ratios as mentioned in granted claim 1 and the nature of the fibers as claimed in granted claims 3 and 7 of the Patentee. Hence this objection shall not be entertained. For this the second opponent has stated that no rationale has been provided in the description. In reply to this argument the Patentee has replied that inventive features of the Patentee’s invention lies on the ratio of mixing the ingredients as claimed in granted claim 1 of the Patentee; thickness and length of the fiber material; thickness of the middle layer consisting of the reinforcing or fiber material; method of sprinkling the fiber during the manufacturing of the patented mold and the presence of reinforcing layer as a sandwich layer between two gypsum layers. It is prayed that the invention shall be looked in toto rather piece meal basis. After getting the patent right the burden of proof shifts on the shoulders of the opponent to prove that the invention is not workable. Since the second opponent could not prove with any evidential support that the patented article has no improved shelf life and or there is crack development it is ought to be agreed that the patented article has the advantages as disclosed by the patentee. It is further argued that the invalidation report is not prepared by a person skilled in the art. The said report is neither an affidavit. Credential of the reporter, namely, Mr.K.S.Hariprasad is missing to identify that he is the person skilled in the art. Therefore it cannot be taken as evidence otherwise it will be against to the principle law of evidences. Therefore, it was prayed not to take the invalidation report as presented by the second opponent. Even if the citations of the invalidation report are taken into consideration no interpretations are given. The second opponent’s cited document US 323110 teaches about the middle layer which is made of cloth but not the reinforcing material as disclosed in the Patentee’s invention. The second opponent has also pointed out at irrational ratios of the ingredients as specified by the patentee, for example if the plaster of paris is taken at the lower end, that is, 25% and the water at 45% then the resulting mixture has more water content which leads to a flowable mixture than obtaining a sustainable mixture of the required consistency in preparing the end product. As an another example, if the plaster of paris is taken as 75% and the water as 5%, then the obtained mixture is fragile and unsuitable to prepare the suitable mold for ornamentation. The Patentee in reply to the above objection has stated that the lacunae, if any of the granted patent shall be proved by the opponent because the burden of proof shifts on to the patentee in Post-grant Opposition. Therefore, in the absence of this this objection is null and void. In a counter argument the second opponent has agreed that the burden of proof is on the opponent but the variant percentages which were discussed as above is from common knowledge and therefore does not require any experimental proof. Further it was also argued that the Patentee’s disclosure is vague even with respect to the desired results, viz., prolonged shelf life and no crack development of the manufactured molds according to the invention are same even when the reinforcing material is used at 1% and at 14% as claimed ranges in the granted claim 1. The Opposition Board has opined that Section 64(d), 2(1)(j),2(1)(ja) are not grounds for opposition. Equivalent sections of 64(d) is 25(2)(f), 2(1)(j) is 25(2)(b) and 2(1)(ja) is 25(2)(e) respectively. US Patent No. 323110 dated 28.07.1885 discloses the method of construction of cornice i.e., an ornamental plaster

mould for installation at the juncture of a ceiling and the wall, it also discloses sandwich type of plaster mould comprising top and bottom layers are plaster of paris and middle one is fiber as claimed in patented claims 4-9, therefore the subject matter of claims 4-9 are not novel over US Patent No. 323110. Hence objection u/s 25(2)(b) is valid for patented claims 4-9. US Patent No. 323110 is silent about ratio of components, but it is mere modification of known composition as per section 3(e), therefore opposition u/s 25(2)(f) is valid. However, a person skilled in that art can optimize the proportion of components to make a sandwich pattern of present composite in an obvious manner. As sandwiched pattern of composite is disclosed in fig.1, claim 1 of US Patent No. 323110 and more over patentee has not provided any data which can show/prove improved life time, strength of the composite in comparison with prior art US Patent No. 323110. Application No, US20080152945 A1 having title of the invention as "Fiber reinforced gypsum plaster discloses a gypsum-containing panel and a method of making it are disclosed including at least one facing layer having a first polymer that is reinforced with reinforcing fibers and a gypsum core that has a second polymer in a second polymer matrix interwoven with a gypsum matrix. The first polymer in the facing layer and said second polymer matrix in said gypsum core form a continuous polymer matrix, it is obvious to a person skilled in the art to prepare a sandwich type ornamental plaster mould for installation at the juncture of a ceiling and the wall with deferent percentages of components of plaster mold in view of prior arts US 323110 & US 20080152945, therefore opposition u/s 25(2)(e) is valid. Section 64(e) is not a grounds of opposition, relevant section is 25(2)(d). Opposition board not considered bills & invoice as evidence U/S 25(2)(d) of The Patents Act,1970, because bills & invoice are not having ornamental plaster mold composition information it means that components and percentages of composition therefore, the opposition U/S 25(2)(d) is not valid. Section 64(f) is not a ground of opposition and overlaps with 25(2)(d) & 25(2)(e). Section 64(2) is not a ground of opposition, relevant ground is 25(2)(d). Invoice is not having ornamental plaster mold composition information. It is not clear that plaster mold composition in purchased invoices are same as patented product. Hence opposition U/S 25(2)(d) is not valid. Section 64(g) is not a ground of opposition; hence the opposition U/S 64(g) is not valid. Section 64(j) is not a ground of opposition of Patent Act; hence the opposition U/S 64(j) is not valid. Section 64(k) is not a ground of opposition and relevant section is 25(2)(f). Plaster molds are known from D1 or D2 as given reply evidence, reinforcing materials are also known from D1 and from D2 and documents discussed in opponent first objection (Opposition u/s 64(d), 2(1)(j) & 2(1)(ja)). The present composition is known admixture of components of D1 or D2 and molded in known method without any synergism. Hence patented invention falls u/s 3(e) of Act. Thus 25(2) (f) is valid in light of section 3(e). Section 64 is not a ground of opposition. Hence the opposition U/S 64 is not valid. Opponent 2 raised opposition under revocation grounds (i.e. Section 64) instead of post grant grounds (i.e. Section 25(2)), Patentee has not objected the same. And Board considered the relevant grounds of opponent 1 in view of compliance with section 25(2). In view of above findings, the opposition board jointly recommending for REVOCATION of the Patent no. 266332 under sections 25(2) (b), 25(2)(e), 25(2)(f). CONCLUSION:

After careful consideration of the facts as disclosed by the second opponent it is concluded that the second opponent is trying to establish that the art of reinforcing gypsum is known since a long time and thus no specific intellectual input is not present in the impugned invention. The order of the layers and the nature of the reinforcing materials may vary in the cited documents but the ultimate goal is to reinforce the gypsum layers or the product which is expected to develop certain strength to adhere to the intended surfaces and provide the ornamental look. The second opponent has also pointed out at irrational ratios of the ingredients as specified by the patentee, for example if the plaster of paris is taken at the lower end, that is, 25% and the water at 45% then the resulting mixture has more water content which leads to a flowable mixture than obtaining a sustainable mixture of the required consistency in preparing the end product. As an another example, if the plaster of paris is taken as 75% and the water as 5%, then the obtained mixture is fragile and unsuitable to prepare the suitable mold for ornamentation. The question of using the reinforcing material at both the lower end and at the higher end of the claimed range according to the Patentee whether will lead to same desired results cannot be judges in the absence of any experimental details either from the second opponent or from the Patentee. Though this approach of the second opponent appears to be convincing, once again like Patentee’s disclosure of the invention the second opponent’s approach is also without any experimental proof. The second opponent argues that it is the common knowledge and does not require any experimental proof. The US 323110 refers to a cornice having wooden strips embedded at the edges of the cornice so as to become fixed in position by the last layer of plaster, and thereby form a part of the cornice. The claims of this citation refer to the presence of wooden strips which are reproduced as hereunder; 1. A cornice or ceiling decoration composed of plaster or composition and wooden strips embedded at the edges, substantially as shown and described. 2. In a molded cornice or ceiling decoration, the composition or plaster, intermediate layer of cloth' of canvas, 0, and wooden strips a, all combined together, substantially as and for the purposes shown and described. Therefore it is not clear from the above patent which one gives the strength to the cornice. Is it wooden strips or cloth which is used as reinforcing material? The object which is mentioned in this cited document which says that “The object of my invention is to make a very light but strong cornice or other plaster decoration with the least possible amount of plaster and of such construction that it may be placed in position with screws or nails passing through it into the ceiling or wall.” This cited document further says that “The cornice is secured to the ceiling and side wall by screws 6 e passing through the wooden strips, and, if desired, the heads of the screws may be covered by a small piece of ornamental plaster, d”, in other words wooden strips are used for fixing the cornice to the ceiling or wall. Hence it is not possible to conclude on the advantages as taught by the Patentee in his patent. Patentee is silent on how the prolonged life is achieved with no crack development in his cornice. Since either party has not filed any evidence it has to be presumed as far as the comparison between the impugned patent and this citation the Patentee’s claims are at least novel and may lack inventive step. The adduced document by the second opponent is US 1430481 wherein the solo claims which reads as; “ln a ceiling of the class described, a plurality of hangers each consisting of a strip of metal, means connecting said hangers to a support, a reticulate suspended from said hangers, said reticulate consisting of a plurality of wires each extending parallel to the other and through a series of said hangers and a plurality of wires extending across and secured to said first mentioned wires, a plastic body embedding said reticulate, and an ornamental finish on the under surface of said plastic body.” On perusal of this citation it is concluded that the object and claimed invention is nowhere near to the impugned invention. Hence these two cannot be compared for patentability criteria assessment.

The fourth document cited by the second opponent is WO 20080152945 GYPSUM CONTAINING PANEL wherein it is argued that the cited document teaches about the fiber reinforced gypsum which in unambiguous terms explains the effect of reinforcement. Therefore this citation destroys the novelty and inventive step of the impugned invention. Though it is agreed with the arguments made by the patentee that the invalidation report is not an affidavit still the matter disclosed therein is considered for the assessment of the impugned invention under opposition proceedings. The second opponent never described the said validation report is an affidavit. This validation report according to the second opponent is an assisting document to prove the arguments made by the second opponent. The 12 cited documents in the said invalidation report includes the above two references made by the second opponent. The third citation US 1670557 describes that “The body of the elements can well be made of very light material, cork board, magnesite, plaster of paris, etc. and short fiber reinforcements; While with cement wire is used, especially steel wire under tension,” but none of the 10 claims of this document refers to this disclosure. Therefore this document merely mentions about the use of plaster of paris with short fibers as reinforcement material and nothing more. Hence it is concluded that use of plaster of paris with fiber reinforcement is known without any anticipated purpose, because all the 10 claims refers to a building element,` comprising a hardening, cementitious body and individual filamentous reinforcements close together on a face. There of whose ends at the margins of the elements are submerged in the cementitious body. Therefore, proper comparison cannot be made. The fourth document cited by the second opponent is WO 20080152945 GYPSUM CONTAINING PANEL wherein it is claimed that “A gypsum-containing panel comprising: at least one facing comprising a first polymer that is reinforced with reinforcing fibers; and a gypsum core comprising a second polymer in a polymer matrix interwoven with a gypsum matrix; wherein said first polymer in said at least one surface layer and said second polymer matrix in said gypsum core form a continuous polymer matrix.” This document teaches a two layered product wherein the first layer is polymer matrix and the second layer is gypsum matrix containing a polymer matrix. This citation relates to a fiber reinforced gypsum panel. More specifically, it relates to a fiber-reinforced gypsum panel that is strengthened by a polymer web throughout the gypsum core. The presence of polymer matrix is the different element in contrast with the impugned invention. The problems as identified to be solved by this citation are about the disadvantages associated with using 1) Paper & 2) fiberglass as reinforcing materials. Paper being easily damaged and cost is high is not preferred. Fiberglass facings, including scrims, are tough, strong and can be water resistant; however, they make less than ideal surfaces for interior walls. The surface of fiberglass facing, particularly a woven scrim, is not as smooth as paper for painting, wallpapering and other forms of decorative finishes. Finishing of the surface of gypsum panels is intended to form a smooth, monolithic surface. Such a surface is more difficult to obtain when woven or particulate matter is present on the surface. Another disadvantage of fiberglass facings is that it is difficult to bond to the gypsum core. Fiberglass is relatively inert and does not chemically bond with the gypsum crystals. The inorganic glass bonds to the gypsum matrix typically through mechanical interlocking or at best hydrogen bonding. Because the adhesion is weak, the fiberglass delaminates from the gypsum core when reasonable force is applied to it. Further, application of a fiber-reinforced facing does not alter the core of the gypsum panel, which remains somewhat easily damaged. This is a problem where the facing delaminates and becomes separated from the gypsum core, causing failure of the panel system. Therefore the solution offered through this citation as stated is “These and other needs are met or exceeded by a gypsum-containing panel including at least one facing layer having a first polymer that is reinforced with reinforcing fibers and a gypsum core that has a second polymer in a second polymer

matrix interwoven with a gypsum matrix. The first polymer in the facing layer and the second polymer matrix in the gypsum core form a continuous polymer matrix.” In fact this document teaches away the use of glass fibers for improved strength and crack resistance. Perhaps this document is an improved version for using the modified glass fiber for improving strength. If one views in this direction use of glass fibers and in the absence of any evidential support and use of any other fibers for reinforcement of plaster of paris is an old technique. Therefore it is considered that the impugned invention lacks inventive step in view of this citation alone. The next citation by the second opponent is WO 2007059132 wherein the first claim is “A gypsum board comprising a gypsum core sandwiched between and adhered to first and second sheet-like liners which form the outer surfaces of the gypsum board, wherein at least the first liner comprises a thermally bonded nonwoven sheet having an inner surface and an outer surface and comprising a mixture of higher-melting fibers and binder fibers, the binder fibers comprising a first lower-melting polymeric component comprising at least a portion of the peripheral surface thereof, the first lower-melting polymeric component flowing or softening sufficiently during thermal bonding to form thermal bonds at fiber crossover points, the higher-melting fibers comprising one or more higher-melting polymeric components which do not substantially melt or soften during the thermal bonding process, and wherein the inner surface of the thermally bonded nonwoven is mechanically worked after thermal bonding to provide a higher wet bond strength between the gypsum core and the liner than would have been achieved in the absence of the mechanical working step.” On the perusal of this citation it is concluded that this not a proper citation to test the patentability criteria of the impugned patent and hence ignored. The remaining documents were not discussed by the second opponent and hence are not considered. In view of the aforesaid arguments it is concluded that the impugned invention lacks inventive step and hence is revoked. THE THIRD OPPONENT: DIAMOND INTERNATIONAL INEX PVT LTD, GURGAON INDIA The third opponent has relied on the following Patent and Non-patent literature in their opposition proceedings. The following are the annexures which are listed as below. For the convenience sake the following documents are as listed in the order as filed by the opponent and denoted with the letter D followed by a numeral in succession of the list of the documents. PATENT DOCUMENTS: D1: US 6110575 A D2; US 8147629 B2 D3: US 20120034441 A1 D4: US 6237294 B1 D5: US 7918950 B2 D6: US 20080160294 A1 D7: US 5100474 A1 D8: US 4187130 A D9: US 323110 A NON-PATENT LITERATURE D10: PLASTER CORNICE MANUFACTURING AND SUPPLY

D12: contents of D10 & D12 are presented in a video CD wherein the process of manufacturing the plaster cornices is shown. D11: INDIAN STANDARD DOCUMENT TITLED AS “GYPSUM PLASTER BOARDS”, SPECIFICATION (IS 2095 -PART 3: 1996); Second Revision D13: SOME PHOTOGRAPHS DISPLAYING THE MANUFACTRURING PROCESS OF PLASTER MOLDS. D14: Apart from the above the third opponent has submitted an invalidation report issued by Zeus IP. D15: Apart from the above the third opponent has submitted an affidavit from Mr. S.Kuppusamy & Mr. T.M.Thiyagharanjan. it is stated in the said affidavit that the said affidavit is being filed in the capacity of Mr. S.Kuppusamy, being the President and T.M.Thiyagharanjan, being the Secretary of an association called as “Tamilnadu False Ceiling materials Dealers’ Association” of Chennai. The third opponent has stated that he is the ‘Person Interested’ as the opponent primarily deals with manufacturing and distribution of gypsum cornices and mouldings across India as well as globally. As there is no objection from the Patentee it is considered and agreed that the third opponent is the ‘Person Interested’ according to the Act and hence the opposition proceedings under the provisions of the Section 25(2) is hereby allowed. The third opponent has filed the post grant opposition on the following grounds namely, 25(2)(b); 25(2)(d); 25(2)(e); 25(2)(f); and 25(2)(g) of the Act. The third opponent has primarily attacking the independent granted claims 1, 4 and 9; of the Patentee wherein the granted claims 1, 4 and 9 are independent granted claims. The granted claim 1 relates to a composition; the granted claim 4 relaters to an ornamental plastic mold (in other words related to a product); and the independent claim 9 is related to a process for manufacturing the product of granted claim 4. It is argued that all the three independent granted claims of the Patentee are not interlinked by way of any limitations falling part of the respective claims. The granted claim 1 teaches the limitations of the elements of the compositions; the granted claim 4 narrates very broad arrangement of three different layers; the granted claim 9 recites very generic steps for making the product or article. It is further argued that as is generally known in the art, fibrous plaster, that is plaster with fibers (often made of glass fibers or natural fibers (coir fiber) are also used) mixed into it to increase its strength is a known concept being used in the industry for ages. Such fibrous plasters are used for many purposes that includes the cornices or any ornamental products. ARGUMENTS UNDER 25(2)(b); 25(2)(d) AND 25(2)(e) 25(2)(f).: The third opponent has referred Indian Standard Specification IS 2095(Part-3)-1996 related to Gypsum Plaster Boards issued by Bureau of Indian Standards which stated to be covering the method of manufacture, tests and sampling of fibrous gypsum plaster boards and glass fiber reinforced gypsum boards for use as a lining material for ceiling, dry surfacing material for walls door panels or for partitions. Under the method of manufacture of Fiber Gypsum Plaster Board the steps c, d and e are reproduced herein; c) gypsum plaster shall be gauged to an even consistency free from lumps. This shall be spread evenly to cover the entire surface of the casting table within the mould to an even thickness of 4 mm and allowed to set partially; d) The requisite amount of fiber reinforcement shall be distributed evenly over the surface of the face gauge as to overhang the edges by 50 mm; e) The requisite amount of body plaster shall then be poured over the fiber and the fiber shall be pressed and rolled down until it

is thoroughly incorporated in the body plaster. Similarly the Glass reinforced Gypsum Boards are manufactured either by spray suction technique or premixing method. The main objectives of these methods are to ensure thorough dispersal of the glass fiber in the plaster slurry. Therefore it was stated by the third opponent that the referred Indian Standard Specification IS 2095(Part-3)-1996 clearly establishes the three layered structures wherein the first and third layers are gypsum layers and the reinforcement layer is made of fiber. It was pointed out that it is common in the industry to use synthetic fiber, coir fiber, jute fiber; glass wool fiber and so on is common. It is further stated that the cited patent literature it is understood that manufacture of cornice is made by three layers wherein the first and third layers are gypsum layers and the reinforcement layer is made of fiber. Hence it is prayed that the subject matter of the granted independent claims lacks novelty and inventive step. Further the third opponent has stated that the documents D1 to D9 were published before the date of priority of the impugned patent, hence liable to be revoked under the provisions of the Section 25(2)(b). it is stated that the features of the subject matter of granted claims 1,4 and 9 lacks novelty and inventive step as it constitutes a combination of prior art documents and general knowledge in the said field. Therefore the impugned patent shall be revoked under the provisions of the Section 25(2)(e). It is further argued that the subject matter of the granted claims 1, 4 and 9 of the Patentee depicts a mere arrangement / re-arrangement of known devices each functioning independently of one another in known manner. Therefore the impugned patent shall be revoked under the provisions of the Section 25(2)(f) as well. In reply to the above averments made by the third opponent the patentee has replied that; At the outset, the patentee' submits that his patent relates to a composition for ornamental plaster mold and a method for preparing the same for installation in a room space along the juncture of a ceiling and a wall or ceiling. ii. A novel composition for making a patterned- cornice decoration integrated with the mold. iii. One of the main inventive feature of the patent is the composition for making ornamental plaster molds for the said installation were the composition of Plaster of Paris, reinforcing Material and water is within a specified ratio and range as detailed therein. That is, the composition is as follows: a) Plaster of Paris is between 25% and 75%, · b) Reinforcing material is between 1 and 14%, and c) Water is between 5% and 45% iv) A claim under claim 1 has been made for this inventive feature. v) Yet another inventive feature of the invention is the thickness of the reinforcing fiber layer which is uniform throughout the mold. vi) Another inventive feature is that the thickness of the reinforced fiber layer which is uniform throughout the mold is between 0.001 mm to 15 mm, were the preferred embodiment is between 0.005 mm and 10 mm. vii) Yet another inventive feature of the impugned patent is the thickness and length of the fiber as described and claimed for use in the said composition as mentioned above i:e for the combination of the reinforcing fiber in the middle layer and in the proportion as mentioned above i.e in the combination. viii) The patentee submits that these inventive features have been described in detail in the description of the specification and claimed accordingly along with related claims so as to make the invention. The summary of the invention also summarizes these aspects. 25(2)(b) The patentee submits that none of the inventive features are common knowledge or have been employed I used by anyone prior to the filing of the patent application by the patentee. The cited prior art documents also do not dealt with any of the inventive features of the impugned patent and the opponent's cited publication, photographs &videos and US Patents does not have any equivalents features i.e. function, working and result when compared to the impugned patent. The patentee submits that he had clearly explained the prior art documents cited in the First Examination Report and clearly explained as to how his invention is totally different from them. There

upon, the Patent Office had accepted his reply and granted the patent. Therefore the Applicant's objection of anticipation by prior knowledge under Section 25(2) (b) of the Patent Act, 1970 is unsustainable. 25(2)(d) The patentee submits that the inventive feature of the impugned patent was not publicly known or publicly used which is new process/method that uses the fibre in a ratio and as a reinforcing layer in the middle, which is uniform, and of specified thickness and the entire combination. Hence, the invention of the patentee would not attract any objection under Section 25(2)(d) of the Patent Act, 1970. 25(2)(e) The Patentee submits that the present invention involves inventive steps which comprises of a percentage of components viz., plaster of Paris, reinforced fiber and water. The components in the three layers are in a ration and proportion to each other and the uniformity and thickness of the second layer are all novel and unique to the impugned patent and form its inventive features. Hence, the invention of the patentee is not against the provisions of Section 25 (2) (e) of the Patent Act, 1970. The Patentee submits that the novelty resides in the process of making the binding property of the combination and the strength of the same achieved through it. The said composition of an invention has a stronger binding action for ornamental plaster molds, has an improved life time, does not develop hair line cracks, there is no breakage which is technically advanced and much stronger than the conventional molds. In their Reply Evidence the third opponent has stated that the Opponent denies Patentee's submission stating that "Specified ranges and ratios of the claimed composition comprising Plaster of Paris, reinforcing material and water", "Uniform thickness of the reinforcing fiber layer throughout the layer and where the preferred embodiment IS between 0.005mm and 10mm" and " Thickness and length of the fiber described and claimed for use in said composition" are the inventive features of the impugned patent. The Patentee's claims of above said inventive features providing improved life time for molding strip and/ or resolving the defects of breakage, hairline cracks, thus bringing out improved strength are false and vehemently denied by the Opponent. The Opponent submits that as is generally known in the art, fibrous plaster i.e. plaster with fibers (often

made of glass fibers or natural fibers (coir fiber) are also used) mixed into it to increase its strength is a

known concept being used in the industry for ages. Such fibrous plaster finds use in a variety of manner

including but not limited to slabs wherein the fibrous plaster is usually cast into a mold then used in

slabs, ceiling boards for false ceiling and partition boards, plaster cornices i.e. the decorative plaster

projections used under the roof space and above doorways and windows in buildings, making statues,

etc.

The opposition Board has submitted their opinion which is reproduced herewith: Based on opponent’s submission on this ground and reply made by the Patentee, it is observed that, the composition of patented claim 1 overlapping with subject matter of US 4187130.

The composition mentioned in US 4187130 claim in 1 of Patentee's composition in patent

(patent number 266332)

Plaster of paris is between 45% and 75%. Reinforcing material (glass fiber) is between 3 and 10% Water is between 25% and 45%

plaster of paris is between 25% and 99.99% reinforcing material is between 0.001 and 15% water is between 0.001% and 75%

Therefore, claim 1 is not novel over US 4187130. US Patent No. 323110 discloses discloses the method of construction of cornice i.e., an ornamental plaster mould for installation at the juncture of a ceiling and the wall, it also discloses sandwich type of plaster mould comprising top and bottom layers are plaster of paris and middle one is fiber as claimed in patented claims 4-9, therefore the subject matter of claims 4-9 are not novel over US Patent No. 323110. Hence , opposition u/s 25(2)(b) is valid for patented claims 1, 4-9. Board opinion for 25 (2) (d) : Based on opponent’s submission on this ground and reply made by the Patentee, it is observed that, Since lack of sufficient evidences, the opposition under 25 (2) (d) is invalid. Board opinion for 25 (2) (e) : Since the claims 1, 4-9 are not novel over US 323110 and US 4187130 and the same cannot be considered to be inventive. Selection of reinforcing fibre and optimization of the length and thickness of the reinforcing fibre is a routine exercise for a person skilled in the art. Moreover, in absence of any data which can show/prove improved life time, strength of the composite in comparison with the above cited prior arts, claims 2-3 considered to be obvious. Therefore, opposition u/s 25(2)(e) is valid. Since no device involved in the present impugned patent, opposition under 25 (2) (f) is invalid in light of section 3(f). CONCLUSION: D1 is related to Gypsum based composite article and method for producing the same. The objects of the D1 states that It is an object of a first aspect of the present invention to provide a gypsum-based composite article reinforced with glass fibers, which is superior in resistance to external force acting thereon and to severe environmental conditions, even if the article is light in weight and thin in thickness. It is an object of a second aspect of the present invention to provide a gypsum-based composite article reinforced with glass fibers, which is fireproof, earthquake-proof and sound insulating, even if the article is light in weight and thin in thickness. The first independent claim 1 of D1 is; A gypsum-based composite article reinforced with glass fibers, said article comprising: a first member made of a hard gypsum; a second member made of a soft gypsum having a compressive strength which is lower than that of said hard gypsum, said second member being formed on and bonded to said first member; and a mat made of said glass fibers, said mat being embedded in said article in a manner that said first member and said second member are bonded together by means of said mat. D1 cannot destroy the novelty of the impugned invention but hints at using the reinforcement fiber layer between two gypsum layers. D1 teaches about using hard and soft gypsum layers whereas the impugned invention teaches about the same kind of gypsum layers. In the absence of the advantages of using the same kind of gypsum layers it is hard to establish the inventiveness of the impugned invention.

Citation D2 is related to ‘Ceiling Tile Construction’ wherein it is claimed a method of making a suspended ceiling tile comprising calcining gypsum in a dilute water slurry, under pressure, with at least 90% of the solids being about 8% to about 30% cellulose fibers and the respective compliment being of gypsum, dewatering the slurry before rehydrating the gypsum, and rehydrating and crystallizing the gypsum in and about voids in the cellulose fibers to form a homogenous non-air-permeable, rigid preform composite board and after the preform board has set by rehydration and crystallization of the gypsum, cutting a plurality of holes in a face of the preform board by removing the material in the space of the holes to lower its effective weight and to increase its NRC, the hole cutting and/or subsequent processing leaving the holes blind at the side of the tile opposite said face and in essentially free communication across their individual areas with the atmosphere at said face, said holes being cut through said board, and a side of said board is covered with an imperforate web adhered to said side. This claim solves the problem of manufacturing a cost-effective ceiling tile that is more damage resistant and sag resistant than is commonly found in prior art ceiling tile construction. D2 teaches the continuous phase of gypsum and reinforcement material and hence cannot be considered for novelty and inventiveness assessment. D3 is related to ‘Composition for forming wet fiber based composite materials’ and the abstract refers to a wet fiber based composition that includes wet glass fibers, a water dispersible polymeric resin, and gypsum is provided. Components including melamine formaldehyde, a filler material, coupling agents, acetic acid, an accelerator, and/or a hardener may also be added to the composition. The gypsum may be a-gypsum, B-gypsum, or combinations thereof. The wet glass fibers are wet chopped glass fibers or a wet continuous roving. The combination of the wet glass fibers, the water dispersible polymeric resin, and the gypsum have a synergistic effect that creates a composite product that is water resistant, fire resistant, and has improved mechanical properties. In one exemplary embodiment, the wet fiber based composition is used to form a gypsum board that can be molded into various composite products. In other exemplary embodiments, thin multi-ply gypsum boards may be formed by alternately layering glass mats with layers of gypsum/polymer slurry. As understood from this abstract a synergistic effect is due to the combination of glass fibers and polymeric resins. Hence in the absence of any evidence it is difficult to discuss on the inventive features of the impugned invention because the impugned invention teaches the presence of fibers as middle layer that exhibits prolonged life and crack resistance which are different from the synergistic effect as explained in D3. D4 relates to ‘Decorative three dimensional panels and method of producing the same’ and teaches a panel comprise a flexible building sheet, reinforced with a light fibrous material, fabricated by: filling a mold comprising a pattern of a natural material in relief with a fluent hardening material; submerging a reinforcing means within the hardening material; brushing the surface of hardening material; and de-molding the hardened panel. D4 teaches about the development of inappropriate cracking due to bending stresses but this is related to artificial panels that have the disadvantages of relatively high weight and poor insulating properties. Further D4 claims; A method for the manufacture of decorative panels consisting of: (a) filling a single cavity open tray mold, comprising a plurality of indentations in the shape of natural materials, with a fluent hardening material wherein said hardening material is selected from gypsum cement, plaster-of-Paris, or an acrylic based compound, and wherein said mold comprises a continuous pattern of a natural material or materials in relief; (b) totally submerging a reinforcing means within the hardening material; (c) brushing the surface of the hardening material to further submerge said reinforcing means; and (d) de-molding the hardened panel,

There by producing a flexible panel consisting of a one piece unit of molded formations of the same material with said reinforcing means spanning the panel. The second and third claims of D4 are reproduced herewith. 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the reinforcing means is further submerged in the hardening material by pouring a second layer of hardening material over the reinforcing means prior to de-molding the panel. 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein said natural material is selected from the group consisting of: wood planks, logs, bricks, stones, flagstones, millwork, woodwork, shingles and any type of masonry-work D4 teaches about submerging the reinforcing material which cannot be equated with a layered formation of reinforcing material of the impugned invention. The development of a crack in an artificial panel cannot be equated with the cause and nature of crack of the impugned invention also cannot be equated. Therefore it is opined that D4 is also not an appropriate citation for seeking the revocation of the impugned patent. The second claim of D4 teaches about the pouring of second layer over the first layer that contains the reinforcing material. However as the opposition proceedings are progressed it is understood that the use of reinforcing material is for strengthening an article with whatever it is made up of and gypsum is not an exception. Therefore all these citations leads to conclude on the lack of the inventiveness because no evidence has been provided by the Patentee to evidentially conclude that the articles made by the Patentee are indeed exhibit prolonged period of shelf life and crack resistant. D5 is related to ‘Low fiber calcination process for making gypsum fiberboard’ wherein it is stated that an energy efficient method for making a gypsum cellulose fiberboard comprising adding a first portion of cellulose fiber to gypsum before the gypsum and cellulose fiber are co-calcined in a reactor, adding a second portion of cellulose fiber to the slurry after it leaves the reactor to form a second slurry, depositing the slurry to form a mat, dewatering the mat, rehydrating the mat and then finishing the mat to form a final gypsum cellulose fiberboard. D5 aims at the amount of unhydrated hemihydrate in the final gypsum fiberboard panel that is reduced by more than 50% from the level of unhydrated hemihydrate in a panel made with slurry with all of the cellulose fiber calcined with the gypsum. Therefore it is understood that the aims of this citation and impugned invention are different and articles are also different. As stated above it is difficult to assess the inventive step of the impugned invention in the absence of any comparison and evidential support for the benefits being claimed by the Patentee. Further the desired results are not the part of any of the granted claims of the Patentee. D6 is related to ‘Multiple layer gypsum cellulose fiber composite board and the method for the manufacture thereof’. In paragraph [0031] of D6 it is stated that to make composite slurry the input materials include uncalcined gypsum particles, host particles, such as refined cellulose fiber, preferably paper fiber or wood fiber, and water. The present process mixes between about 0.5% to about 30%, and preferably between about 3% to 20% or 10% to 20%, by weight (based on the total solids), wood fibers with the respective complement of ground, but uncalcined, gypsum. Typically the gypsum and cellulose fibers are mixed in respective proportions of about 5 to 1. The dry mix is combined with enough liquid, preferably water, to form a dilute slurry having about 70%-95% by weight water. The ground gypsum and wood fibers are mixed with sufficient water to make a slurry containing about 5-30% by weight solids, preferably about 5-20% by weight solids. The solids in the slurry should comprise from about 0.5% to 30% by weight of wood fibers and preferably from about 3% to 20% wood fibers, the balance being mainly gypsum. Typically the slurry has about 5-10% by weight solids. In paragraph [0035] of D6 it is stated that a first layer of cellulose (including synthetic) fibers is applied on the flat porous forming surface of a forming web screen 60 on dewatering conveyor 70 using cellulose fiber slurry deposited on the web 60 through the first head box 30 and dewatered to provide a layer of fibers on the screen by

the vacuum station 80. The dewatering conveyor 70 is typically a continuous felting dewatering conveyor, such as the type used in paper making operations. The slurry to form the first layer is typically discharged onto the continuous felting dewatering conveyor 70 and dewatered to remove as much uncombined water as possible. The first claim of D6 is related to aA method comprising: preparing a first slurry comprising a mixture of cellulosic fiber and water, depositing said first slurry on a web where it is dried to form a fiber layer, mixing a second slurry comprising a mixture of gypsum and cellulosic fiber in an autoclave under temperature and pressure sufficient to co-calcine the gypsum and cellulose fiber in said second slurry, depositing the calcined gypsum and cellulosic fiber second slurry on the fiber layer to form a gypsum and cellulosic fiber composite layer on the fiber layer, pressing the gypsum and cellulosic fiber composite layer and fiber layer to form a composite mat having a cellulosic fiber layer and a gypsum cellulosic fiber layer, rehydrating the gypsum cellulosic fiber layer of the composite mat, and drying the rehydrated composite mat. Thus D6 teaches the ratio of gypsum and reinforcing material, that is, cellulose fibers in 5:1 whereas the impugned patent refers to 25:1 at lower end and 75:14 at higher end when it is considered as percentage to the total weight of article of the Patentee. If the higher end is considered it is approximately 5:1 which is equivalent to D6. Hence it is considered that Novelty of the impugned patent is lost. In the absence of any evidential support inventive step cannot be ascertained even if the desired properties of the Patentee are not mentioned in D6 it can be viewed as inherent properties which have been discovered. D7 is related to ‘Glass fibre reinforced plaster composition’ wherein the abstract of this cited document discloses a glass fibre reinforced composition of a settable mix of plaster, a water-based phenol formaldehyde resin, an acid hardener and a reinforcement of glass fibres. A product of this composition can be produced by spraying the fluid mix and fibre component separately but simultaneously onto a surface. This document refers to solve a problem with respect to use of less phenolic resin and cost effective curing. Hence this document cannot be taken for the novelty and inventive step assessment of the impugned invention. D8 relates ‘Method for producing shaped glass fiber reinforced gypsum articles’ wherein the abstract of this document discloses a method for forming shaped articles from glass fiber reinforced gypsum. An aqueous slurry of calcium sulfate hemihydrate, water and glass fibers contains between 22 and 45 parts by weight water, 100 parts by weight calcium sulfate hemihydrate and 3 to 10 parts by weight glass fiber. The slurry is provided as a continuous ribbon on a moving, water-impermeable first membrane. A water-impermeable second membrane is applied above the continuous ribbon and sealed along its side edges to the side edges of the first membrane to form a sandwich consisting of the two membranes and the slurry ribbon. The sandwich is shaped prior to the setting of the gypsum and is retained in the desired shape until initial setting occurs. Thereafter at least a portion of one of the two membranes is removed and substantially all of the uncombined water is removed from the shaped ribbon. The problem and solution approach of this citation is a desirable elimination of the cumbersome and expensive water removal stage which is necessitated in the process described in the British patent. It is also desirable to develop a process for producing glass fiber reinforced gypsum articles on a continuous basis in a variety of profiled shapes. This citation further teaches the glass fibers preferably are provided in the form of chopped glass roving of any conventional glass fiber having a diameter ranging from 0.0003 to about 0.005 inch. The fiber length should average from 1/2 to 4 inches. Chopped glass fiber roving from a chopper set to cut 11/2-inch to 2-inch lengths is optimum. The glass fibers also may be

provided in the form of a preformed randomly oriented glass fiber mat. The subject matter of claims of D8 and the impugned patent are not comparable. Hence this citation is not considered in this decision. Discussion on D9 is not done here as it was discussed earlier. The video as submitted has been viewed and photographs as adduced are seen and just noted the contents. No comments can be provided on these documents. D6 can be considered as relevant for the assessment of Novelty and Inventive step. Remaining documents in general shows about different fibers used for reinforcement. In view of the above discussion the impugned invention is lacking in inventive step. Hence patent is hereby revoked. ARGUMENTS UNDER 25(2)(g); The third opponent has stated that the Impugned Indian Patent does not adhere to the requirements under subsection 4(a); 4(b) and 4(c) under Section 10 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The invention described in the complete specification is not sufficiently and fairly described and specifically in terms of the claims supporting the aspects recited under the Summary of the invention in respect of providing a stronger binding plaster mold, providing a stronger binding plaster composition with an improved life time and dispensing with breakage, hairline crack with improved strength. Hence, it is submitted that claim 1, 4 and 9 is vague and unclear, and is not properly supported by the description and drawings. Further, the alleged novelty/ inventive step is not clear and is not sufficiently described in the supporting description. In the light of the above, it is submitted that the patent specification of the impugned patent does not sufficiently and clearly describe the invention. In their Reply statement the Patentee has stated that The patentee submits that the specification has to

be considered as a single document and as a whole. The claim has to be read and construed in the light

of the specification. These are all settled principles of patent construction. Parts of the description one

or more claims should not be segregated and viewed in isolation to the other contentions of the

specification. The claims have been made for any fibre per se, but for the above said inventive features.

The Opposition Board has opined that The Patentee has failed to disclose whether the entire claimed

range of proportion of the components of the plaster mold composition is works or not. Experimental

example supports for only for one proportion that 1:1 ratio of plaster of Paris and water. As such, claim

1 of the Patent is vague.

The subject matter of Claim-2 of the present application teaches the reinforcing fiber is synthetic fiber,

coir fiber, jute fiber and so on, preferably synthetic fiber or coir fiber; synthetic fiber is polymer, cross

linked polymer, homo polymer, copolymer or mixture thereof. However the patentee failed to show the

experimental examples to carry out the invention using above defined fibers of claim 2. Claims 3 to 9 of

the impugned Patent are not clear or lack definiteness.

In toto, Patented claims does not allow the skilled person to carry out the invention in the whole scope

without undue burden in order to test which fibers, proportion works and which do not. Therefore

opposition u/s 25(2)(g) is valid.

CONCLUSION:

Agreeing to the Opposition Board’s opinion it is decided to revoke the patent.

FOURTH OPPONENT: M.JOTHI of Madurai:

The fourth opponent has stated that they are no longer interested to prosecute further and withdrawing

from the opposition proceedings. Hence it is treated as withdrawn.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GRANTED CLAIMS BY THE PATENTEE:

After the hearing proceedings were completed the Patentee has proposed amendments to the granted

claims which are produced as hereunder: further it is stated by the Patentee that the said amendment is

not a substantial amendment so as to alter the nature of the invention or the claims but it only

rephrases the claims so as to make them more specific both to the inventor and to the utilizing public.

1. A composition for making ornamental plaster mold for installation in a room space along the

juncture of a ceiling and a wall or ceiling comprising;

a) Plaster of paris is between 25% and 75%

b) Reinforcement fiber is between 1% and 14%, and thickness of the fiber is between 0.001

mm and 9 mm and its length is between 1 mm and 10 mm, and the reinforcing fiber layer

being of uniform thickness throughout the mould where the thickness of the mold is

between 0.001 mm to 15 mm, more preferably between 0.005 mm and 10 mm

c) Water is between 5% and 45%.

2. The plaster composition as claimed in claim 1 wherein the reinforcing fiber is synthetic fiber,

coir fiber, jute fiber, glass wool fiber and the like; synthetic fiber is polymer, cross linked

polymer, homopolymer, copolymer or mixture thereof.

3. A ornamental plaster mold as in claim 1 for installation in a room space along the juncture of a

ceiling or on the wall or ceiling comprising; a first layer and third layer is plaster of paris wherein

the reinforced material is sandwiched between said first layer and third layer.

4. The ornamental plaster mold as claimed in claim 3 wherein the top layer is an outer decorative

surface for facing into the room space and including raised decorative ornamentation along the

ceiling and wall.

5. The ornamental plaster mold as claimed in claim 3 wherein the sandwiched middle layer is

reinforcing material such as fiber.

6. The ornamental plaster mold as claimed in claim 3 wherein the reinforcing layer is sprinkled

throughout the mold randomly or uniformly such as stripes, cross linked, round or any other

shape and and the third layer is placed on the second reinforcing layer.

7. A method for making an ornamental plaster mold as claimed in claims 1 to 6 comprising;

a) preparing a slurry of plaster of paris and water in the predetermined proportion with

thorough mixing;

b) pouring the slurry in a predetermined pattern mold to make a desired ornamental

decorative mold with desired thickness to form a first layer;

c) providing reinforcing fiber onto said first layer with the desired thickness to form a second

reinforcing layer;

d) pouring the said slurry onto the reinforcing second layer to form third layer wherein the

surface of the said third layer id flat;

e) allowing the mold formed using the composition to set and then it is removed and dried

with known methods.

These proposed amendments of claims have been forwarded to the opponents for their comments and

or arguments before finalizing the decision on this Patent. They have been given 15 days’ time to

respond from the date of issue of the communication. All the three interested opponents have

responded and their arguments are discussed in this decision as detailed as hereunder.

The first opponent has stated that the Patentee has not filed Form-13 to propose the amendment and

therefore shall not be taken on record. It is disagreed with this view because as a consequence of the

opposition the Patentee has the right to propose amendment to the specification without filing Form-

13.

The subject matter of said amended claims does not derive any support from the specification thus not

fulfilling the requirements of the provisions of the Section 10(4) of the Act and therefore shall be

revoked.

With respect to the amended claim m1 of the Patentee the first opponent has stated that the said claim

is vague and unclear as range percentage of the components of the composition is not mentioned in any

unit form. It is further stated that the Patentee arbitrarily mentioned the middle part of the mold as

reinforcing fiber layer whereas the same was mentioned in granted claims as reinforcing fiber. The use

of phrase ‘and the like’ in claim 2 is indefinite and creates a doubt on working of the invention. Claim 3

does not have any antecedent to previous claim 1 as the claim 1 discloses a composition and the claim 3

represents a product. Therefore the claim 3 which is shown as dependent claim is not allowable under

the practice of the office. Under the same argument the dependent claims 4 5 and 6 which are shown as

dependent on claims 3 4 and 3 respectively are not allowable. Claim 7 has vague terms like

‘predetermined’ and ‘known methods’ which amounts to uncertainty and indefiniteness.

The first opponent has further depended on the citations submitted along with written submission at

the time of filing post-grant opposition. For the sake of the brevity the arguments are not repeated here.

Further it is stated by the first opponent that even the Opposition Board has recommended for the

revocation of the patent which further substantiate the opponents’ submission. Hence it is prayed to

revoke the impugned patent and costs may be awarded as per the provisions. It was also requested for

if required further hearing may be offered.

The second opponent has stated that the amended claims teach about very broad ranges which have

been proved to lack Novelty and Inventive step. This has been proved through the citations that were

filed during the post-grant opposition proceedings. It is stated that no data or parameters or other

metrics are disclosed to enable a person skilled in the art to make or operate the so-called invention,

like pressure, temperature, time, consistency, weight, volume etc. other than broad ranges of the

substance/s used nor any data to show/prove improved life time, strength or stability of the composite

are disclosed and the specification is vague. The second opponent further stated that the Opponent

wishes to refer to the joint recommendations of the Board of Opposition submitted on 15.03.2016, a

copy of which was provided to the parties and relies on the findings therein on the basis of which the

Board recommended revocation of the patent under Sec.25 (3)[b] of the Act.

It is further stated that The Board has also pointed out that US Patent 20080152945 A1 discloses a

gypsum-containing panel and the method of making it, thereby rendering the mould obtained obvious

to persons skilled in the art and as such Opposition under Section 25(2)(e) is valid.

The Board observes that US Patent No.323110 dated 28.07.1885 discloses the method of construction of

cornice i.e., an ornamental plaster mould for installation at the juncture of a ceiling and the wall. US

Patent No.323110 is silent about ratio of components. However, a person skilled in that art can

optimize the proportion of components to make a sandwich pattern of present composite in an obvious

manner. As sandwiched pattern of composite is disclosed in fir.1, claim 1 of US Patent No.323110 and

patentee has not provided any data which can show/prove improved life time, strength of the

composite in comparison with prior art US Patent No.323110.

It is further stated that The Board has also opined that although US Patent No.323110 is silent about

ratio of components, it is mere modification of known composition as per Section 3(e) and hence

opposition under Section 25(2)(f) is valid.

The Board also observed that Plaster molds are known from D1 or D2 as given reply evidence,

reinforcing materials are also known from D1 and from D2 and documents discussed in opponent first

objection (Opposition u/s 64(d), 2 (1)(ja). The present composition is known admixture of components

of D1 or D2 and molded in known method without any synergism. Hence patented invention falls u/s.

3(e) of Act. Thus 25(2) (f) is valid in light of section 3(e).

It is pointed out that The Board has opined that the subject matter of Claim-2 of the present application

teaches the reinforcing fiber is synthetic fiber, coir fiber, jute fiber and so on, preferably synthetic fiber

or coir fiber; synthetic fiber is polymer, cross linked polymer, homopolymer, copolymer or mixture

thereof. However the patentee failed to show the experimental examples to carry out the invention

using above defined fibers of claim 2. This does not allow the skilled person to carry out the invention in

the whole scope without undue burden in order to test which fibers work and which do not. Therefore

the opposition under Section 25(2)(g) is valid.

It is further pointed out that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification

was anticipated having regard to the knowledge, oral or otherwise, available within the mason

community in India, Malaysia, Singapore and other countries. The patentee has merely imported

samples and duplicated them, including in design, form, process and application. It is submitted that the

proposed amendments to the Claims do not improve the case of the Patentee and do not eliminate the

vices or deficiencies that render the claimed invention invalid necessitating revocation of the patent.

Attacking each amended claim of the Patentee the second opponent has drawn attention to the

following arguments:

1. Claim 1 is too broad that in it’s present form will include the composition of almost all the

plaster of paris (POP) ornamental ceiling that is being manufactured by the industry for many decades

now.

2. Claim 1 is not followed by a best embodiment. What is claimed in claim one is a very broad

range of composition of POP (25-75%), reinforcing fiber (1-14%), water (5-45%). A mason from the

industry will not be able to perform the invention, without conducting several trails and errors. The

thickness of the fibre (0.001-9mm) and the thickness of the mold (0.001-15mm) claimed is also a very

braod range. Considering there are a total of five parameters that has to be fine tuned to be able to

perform the invention satisfactorily, a person wishing to adopt the same will have to conduct several

such trails before he can succeed in the same. Hence the disclosure does not enable a person in the art

to work the invention with such five broad parameters.

3. Claim 1 is also not novel, as ornamental cornices were made fro decades using a composition of

POP, reinforcing fiber and water. It is also common sense to understand that the broad range covers the

composition by which a stable ornamental cornice using POP can be made.

4. Claim 2 is not novel, as the use of the claimed fibers as reinforcing material in many

constructions including ornamental plaster construction is prior art.

5. Claim 3 is not novel, as ornamental plaster molds used as decorating ceilings having two or

three layers sandwiched using a a reinforcing material is prior art.

6. The above cited claims 1-3 are not novel in the light of prior art citations US Letters Patent

323110, US 1430481, US 1670557, and WO 200805242. The US patent reference 323110 discloses use of

Plaster of Paris and an intermediate layer (which is a reinforcing material) which can be cloth or strip.

Also, the US patent reference 323110 discloses the ornamental plaster molds that are installed along

with juncture of ceilings and walls of a room. Similarly, US 1430481 and US 1670557 discloses the use of

Plaster of Paris and a reinforcement material for achieving flat and curved building elements.

7. Claim 4 is not novel. All decorative ceilings from time immemorial, including those using POP has

had decorative surface towards the room space or projecting outwards from the wall/ceiling, including

raised decorative ornamentation, along ceiling and wall. Claim 4 does not teach anything new.

8. Claim 5 is not novel, as using reinforcing material as fibre, and sandwiching the same to achieve

reinforcement of two layers is prior art.

9. Claim 6 is not novel. It only teaches us to sandwich two layers of POP using fibre. The method of

sandwiching, viz, sprinkling randomly or using uniform stripes of varied shapes, is a very generic method

of sandwiching just about anything.

10. Claim 5 and 6 are not novel in lieu of the following prior art. The US letters patent 323110

discloses the method of construction of cornice i.e., an ornamental plaster mold for installation at the

juncture of a ceiling and the wall. The method proposes deposition of a first layer (plaster) into the mold

upon which a second layer of canvas or cloth (reinforcing material) and another layer (third layer) of

plaster for preparing the cornice. Claim 4 is therefore not novel in the light of US letters patent 323110.

11. Claim 7 is not novel nor teaches a person in art to achieve making an ornamental plaster.

It teaches preparing slurry of POP and water in a predetermined proposition, where the

predetermined proposition is a very broad range that a person working in this field cannot follow the

disclosure to achieve any intended invention.

It further teaches, preparing slurry of POP and water which is poured in to a decorative mold to form fist

layer, using reinforcing fibres on to the first layer to form a second reinforcing layer and further pouring

more slurry on to the second reinforcing layer to form a third layer and allowing the mold to set and

dry, which is a generic method which has been in use in the industry to manufacture decorative POP for

ceilings and walls.

12. Claim 7 is also obvious in the light of prior art US letters patent 323110 which discloses the

method of construction of cornice i.e., an ornamental plaster mold for installation at the juncture of a

ceiling and the wall. The method proposes deposition of a first layer (plaster) into the mold upon which

a second layer of canvas or cloth (reinforcing material) and another layer (third layer) of plaster for

preparing the cornice. Claim 9 is therefore not novel in the light of US letters patent 323110.

13. Claim 7 is also abstract and in-definitive as the terms used ‘predetermined’ and ‘desirable’ is

subjective in nature.

Hence it was requested by the second patentee to take note that the broad claims, which are not

followed by any best embodiments does not teach a person in the art to perform if any invention is

intended. The use of materials and the method of use and the process of manufacturing ornamental

cornices claimed here are not novel.

While replying to the proposed amendments the third opponent has stated that the amendments

sought by the Patentee are nothing but a camouflage of the known facts. It is further said that they still

abide by the documents filed as evidences during the post grant opposition proceedings and relay on

the arguments which were made during the prosecution of the said opposition. For the sake of brevity

the said arguments are not repeated here. Further the third opponent has relied on one additional

document which is stated to be few advertisements of the opponent for the year 2001 of the same

product for which the applicant is claiming the exclusivity. The said extra evidence is the photo copies of

the INDIAN DESIGN MAGAZINE. In the said additional citation it is stated that “walls with a difference.

Presenting Brand TM architectural cornices and mouldings. It is further stated that, For the first time in

India, Diamond International introduce Brand TM, a revolutionary alternative to Plaster of Paris.” Hence

this additional citation is not taken on record for the reason that the detailed pictures could not be

compared with plaster of paris articles of the impugned invention.

The third opponent has further argued by saying for the sake of common sense as claimed by the

Patentee; if we take one situation where the plaster of paris is 25% and water is 45% and if the fiber is a

maximum of 14%, the total is only 84% and there would be no specification of about rest 16%. It is

impossible to make a slurry with 25% and 45% ratio. For the sake of common sense if we take another

scenario where the plaster of paris is 50% and the fiber is 14% and balance is water, can the patentee

still make a slurry? Therefore the ratios claimed are absurd, unreal and with malafide intentions. The

product for which a patent is granted to the patentee is a simple cornice which is also made by labour

sitting under the trees on every street in every city.

In concluding the argument the third opponent has said that the three layered structure is very well known in the prior art and process of making the mold is also very well known. The Patentee’s specification is not meeting the requirements of the sub-section 10(4) of the Act and hence requested to revoke the patent. THE FINAL CONCLUSION: The Patentee claims through his invention that the plaster of paris made molds as manufactured by the process as disclosed and because of the three layered construction wherein the reinforcing material with specified features used and placed as middle layer yields to such a product which exhibits prolonged shelf life and crack resistance. But no comparative data is provided in the specification to

substantiate this statement. During the opposition proceedings none of the opponents has proved that the statement made by the Patentee is wrong or misleading by filing any relevant data. Opponents were expected to provide the experimental details with the product of the Patentee and compared with that of the product which according to the opponents is/are known to the public before the priority date of the Patentee’s application. In general practice the onus of proof lies with the applicant [who will later be called as ‘Patentee’ after obtaining the grant from this office] to prove the statement by providing the requisite experimental details before the grant of the patent; whereas under the Post-grant opposition the onus of proof lies with the opponent(s) to establish that Patentee’s invention is not workable or not different from the prior art teachings. Neither the Patentee as an applicant nor any of the opponents has filed any experimental evidence. Now the question arises the benefit of doubt goes to whom? Since the current proceedings are under Post-grant Opposition the benefit of doubt shall obviously go the Patentee. Still a dilemma persists in taking a neutral final call in this case because of the absence of any evidential support in the impugned invention and therefore has to be assessed from different perspective. If any indication towards the possibility of the impugned invention is available in the granted patent with respect to the patentability criteria then there is a possibility in deciding the instant case accordingly. With the above view the undersigned desires to analyze the impugned invention through the grounds of opposition viz., 25(2)(d) to 25(2)(g) which were relied by all the opponents. ANALYSIS The Patentee claims a product, prima facie, appears to be known before the date of priority. Why the phrase ‘prima facie’ is used here is that a cornice made out of plaster of paris including various reinforcing fibers are known and the intended utility or effect of the presence of plaster of paris in hydrated form and reinforcing material(s) are also known, but not with a Patentee’s product that has specified dimensions of the fiber as claimed in the proposed amended claim numbered as ONE. Even the prior art teaches about hard and soft gypsum layers as two outer layers which has a sandwich reinforcement layer. The impugned invention does not make any difference between the first and third layer which in other words comprises either the hard gypsum or soft gypsum or any kind of gypsum. A person skilled in the art will not go back to the basics when there is an advancement in technology of using different composite gypsum layers as first and third layers unless there is some synergistic or unexpected or more usefulness of the product is found in manufacturing such product which probably should have a different technique than the routine. The specifications of the reinforcing material(s) may vary from one another depending on the nature of the materials or fibers used for reinforcement. As the name “reinforcement” refers to and which means the use of a material that strengthens the product that includes flexural strength. The proposed seventh claim teaches a general method of manufacture which is devoid of the Patentee’s specifications of the reinforcing material and the ratio of the components as claimed in claim 1. Since the claim 7 is shown as dependent on claims 1 to 6 and therefore it shall be understood that all the specifics are followed and the product as obtained is of that of claim 1. After perusing the description and the claims it is concluded that if there is an invention, or otherwise, if the Novelty and Inventive Step are there in the impugned invention that shall be attributable only to two factors, viz., the ratio of the components and the specified dimensions of the reinforcing material(s) as stated by the Patentee. Invention, if at all any, cannot be attributed to the three layered structure as the said structure is deducible from the prior art or from common general

knowledge. Now let us try to understand this two factors whether they really contribute towards the establishment of ‘Invention’ through the provisions of the Patents Act. Under general common knowledge it is possible to calculate the amount of water required to a given quantity of plaster of paris to hydrate and to prepare slurry with the required consistency to prepare the wet molds and later dried for obtaining the final products or molds with the pre-determined designs. The Patentee claims that the plaster of paris shall be 25% to 75% and water requirement shall be between 5% and 45%. The opponents could not establish with respect to any unit specified prepared slurry but depended on general common knowledge for the preparation of a required consistent slurry for the preparation of molds. The Patentee also did not mention in his description that the selected ranges are out of the known consistent ranges. In the absence of this specific statement and on perusing the broad ranges claimed by the Patentee it is concluded that the ratio as claimed by the Patentee between water content and plaster of paris content is nothing new and inventive in nature. On perusal of various documents filed by the opponents and arguments made by them it is understood that the reinforcing material used for the preparation of the molds in question can be optimized by trial and error methods. The opponents could not argue on the dimensions of the fibers used in the prior art whereas the Patentee has proposed certain dimensions. A question arises here that if the fibers are natural in origin then how the Patentee can have a control on the specified dimensions. If the used reinforcement materials are synthetic in nature then there is a possibility of obtaining the controlled fibers having the desired dimensions. The description is silent on natural fibers, in other words the Patentee has no control on the specified dimensions. Description is also silent on how to prepare synthetic fibers with the desired dimensions. Further the description is also silent on the method of placing the reinforcing material, that is, either by sprinkling or simply spreading or any other means and the effect of various such placing methodologies and the best method to be adopted to obtain the desired results, viz., prolonged shelf life and crack resistance. In the absence of the key information a benefit of doubt cannot be given to the Patentee. Now therefore the invention, if any, could not be convincingly acceptable through the factors, that is, the selection of components of the claimed composition, the specified ratio of the components of the composition, the selection of fibers, the dimensional specification of fibers, the method of placing the fibers and finally the method of making the pre-determined designed molds. In view of the above arguments it is decided to revoke the patent granted to the Patentee. Hence patent is hereby revoked.

Dated 9th August 2017

(T V MADHUSUDHAN)

Deputy Controller of Patents & Designs