Judgment Baboo Lall Jain 1. THIS application has been made by Unique Transmission India Pvt. Ltd. under Section 64 of the Patent Act, 1970 (No. 39 of 1970) for revocation by this Court of the Indian Patent No. 157180 which has been granted in favour of an invention for 'Flexible Couplings' as mentioned in the Certificate issued by the Controller of Patents dated 1st August, 1986. 2. THE instant application was filed by Unique Transmission India Pvt. Ltd. in this Court on 3rd April, 1989. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner carried on and still carries on business in respect of flexible couplings. Formerly the business was carried on under the name and style of Relay Corporation, which came into existence in 1951. Further case of the petitioner is that the said firm made flexible couplings since about 1960 for use in connection with their own pumping sets. Gradually the said firm commenced manufacturing tyre-type flexible couplings and commenced selling and marketing the same under the brand name 'Unique'. According to the petitioner the said "Unique" brand couplings are the most extensively used flexible couplings in India. The said firm was thereafter converted into a Private Limited Company being the petitioner above-named. 3. FURTHER case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been inter alia supplying reinforced type tyres with flexible couplings to various departments in Indian Railways, including the Chittarnajan Locomotive Works at least since 7th December, 1972. The said couplings, according to the petitioner, have also been supplied by the petitioner, inter alia, to Garden Reach Ship Builders and Garden Reach Workshops Ltd. at least since 1975 and enquiries were made in September, 1974. According to the petitioner, the said couplings had been originally developed by West German Company 'Vulkan Kupplunsund Gorriebebau' (hereinafter referred to as 'Vulkan' or as Vulkans') about 37 years back, that is in or about 1952. 4. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the said couplings in view of their origin from the said West German Company had become publicly known in the trade and to the general public as 'Vulkan Couplings'. In or about June, 1988 the petitioner tendered for supply of reinforced tyres to the Indian Railways. 4. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the said couplings in view of their origin from the said West German Company had become publicly known in the trade and to the general public as 'Vulkan Couplings'. In or about June, 1988 the petitioner tendered for supply of reinforced tyres to the Indian Railways. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was surprised to receive a telex dated 28th September, 1988 from the Controller of Stores, Southern Railway, Madras, in response to the said tender for confirmation that the materials would not infringe Patent No. 157180 of the respondent No. 1 and other rights as to design and trade mark. After receipt of the said telex the petitioner enquired into the matter and got further particulars of the patent registered in the name of the respondent No. 1 for flexible couplings bearing No. 157180. 5. A copy of the complete specification and claims of the said patent as submitted by the respondent No. 1 is also annexed to the petition. 6. BEFORE considering the law on the points involved, I first propose to deal with the various documents annexed to the petition and the case made out by the respondent No. 1. Annexure 'A' to the petition is an order dated 13th July, 1973, from Chittranjan Locomotive Works to Relay Corporation. This is an order for supply of rubber couplings metal ring, reinforced type, for Mak Diesel Engine, in matched sets of two specifications, issued on 7th December, 1972 as per drawings, which form part of Annexure 'A', which according to the petitioner were furnished by the Chittaranjan Locomotive Works and show that the name given to the article ordered is Vulkan Coupling Tyres-EZ-147s. There is another order by Chittaranjan Locomotive Works on Relay Corporation dated 13th July, 1973, which is also for rubber couplings mental ring reinforced type for Mak Diesel Engine. 7. IN the said order the specification No. UD/DL/3472/DC issued on 7th December, 1972 is mentioned. The said specification which is annexed to the said order mentions that the order is for diaphragm reinforced rubber coupling for Mak Engine. The drawing N. 1/EE/16/009. Referred to in the said specification uses the words 'Vulkan Coupling Tyres-EZ 147s'. The other drawing number is also mentioned in the specification, that is 61.61.00.22. The said drawing also used the words 'Vulkan EZ 147'. The drawing N. 1/EE/16/009. Referred to in the said specification uses the words 'Vulkan Coupling Tyres-EZ 147s'. The other drawing number is also mentioned in the specification, that is 61.61.00.22. The said drawing also used the words 'Vulkan EZ 147'. It appears from the said specifications that the same were first issued by Chittaranjan Locomotive Works on 7th December, 1972. There is another letter dated April 28, 1979 issued by the Garden Reach Ship Builders and Engineers Limited to M/s. Relay Corporation, acknowledging receipt of four copies of the drawing No. 271078 EZ/86/R.-1. The tender was for supply of flexible couplings against the order of Garden Reach Ship-builders and Engineers Limited dated 22nd January, 1979. The said letter mentions that the said drawings had been approved by the said Garden Reach Ship-builders and Engineers Limited. The drawing which was approved by the said Garden Reach Workshops, is also annexed to the petition and the same mentions double diaphragm flexible couplings. The drawing gives the details of various component parts numbering 14 which are (1) Driven Hub, (2) Hub casing, (3) Housing, (4) Outer Flange (5) Pressure Ring, (6) INter Ring, (7) Pressure Plate, (8) Diaphragm, (9) Hex Bolt, M/s with Nylock Nut, (10) Hex Bolt Marks-14 with Nylock Nut (11) Socket HD cap Screw M10 with Nylock Nut, (12) Hex Bolt Mlp with Spring Washer, (13) Socket HD Cap Screw Mb with spring Washer and (14) Spring Washer. 8. A copy of the said order of Garden Reach Workshops dated 22nd January, 1979 mentioned in the order is for manufacture and supply of flexible couplings as per the drawings of Relay Corporation. A copy of the inspection note mentioning order dated 31st May, 1975 for flexible couplings (Vulkan) 115 is also annexed. The inspection note also shows that the goods were dispatched from 18th September, 1975. The next document is an invoice dated 23rd July, 1975 drawn by Relay Corporation on the Garden Reach Workshops Limited. The said invoice is for the value of Flexible coupling Vulkan Type EZ-115 series 113. The next document is a copy of the invoice dated 1st September, 1975 drawn by Relay Corporation on Messrs Garden Reach Workshops Limited for supply of one set (two pieces) flexible couplings diaphragm (double portion) equal to Vulkan EZ-141. The said invoice is for the value of Flexible coupling Vulkan Type EZ-115 series 113. The next document is a copy of the invoice dated 1st September, 1975 drawn by Relay Corporation on Messrs Garden Reach Workshops Limited for supply of one set (two pieces) flexible couplings diaphragm (double portion) equal to Vulkan EZ-141. The next document is a copy of the order dated 3rd April, 1975 issued by the Garden Reach Workshops Limited on Messrs Relay Corporation for supply of one set (two pieces) flexible couplings diaphragm (rubber portion) equal to Vulkan EZ-141. The next document is an order dated 10th September, 1974 issued by Garden Reach Workshops Limited on Relay Corporation for supply of one indigenously manufactured Vulkan coupling for RV- Diesel Engine. This also refers to supply of such couplings to Vulkan EZ-147s specification. There is also a copy of the technical datas and/or Baureihe 123 issued by Vulkan with regard to highly flexible EZ-Kupplung. In the drawing various EZ series are given. There is another series of Vulkan couplings known as EZ S series and also EZS series, mentioned therein. The petitioner has also annexed a letter dated 25th July, 1974 from Vulkan Kupplungs-UND Getriebebau to one Messrs Power and Machinery Construction Company of New Delhi. By the said letter the Vulkan of West Germany are forwarding the exact and detailed technical information concerning highly flexible Vulkan couplings from the enclosed catalogue. It also mentioned that for torques upto 700 KPM, the couplings upto the size of EZ-121 S would be used. 9. THERE is also a pamphlet annexed to the petition under the name of Machine Design originally issued in 1975 by D. N. Reshetove, D. SC (Eng.) a Scientist of the Russian Federation and a Professor of Machine Design, Head of Department of Machine Design and Revised in 1978. This literature also refers to couplings with an elastic element subject to torsconal shear. It refers to couplings with elastic elements in the form of discs with annual crimps (Vulkan). This document shows that even the Russians were naming the flexible coupling as 'Vulkan Couplings (even in 1975). 10. THE next document annexed to the petition is a copy of complete specification No. 157180 dated 23rd April, 1983 marked as application No. 492/Cal/83 dated 23rd April, 1983. This contains a copy of the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 with the controller of patents. 10. THE next document annexed to the petition is a copy of complete specification No. 157180 dated 23rd April, 1983 marked as application No. 492/Cal/83 dated 23rd April, 1983. This contains a copy of the petition filed by the respondent No. 1 with the controller of patents. This document, inter alia states as under: "There is a wide variety of flexible couplings design; most of them consist essentially of two flanged members of hubs, fasten shafts/flanges of the rotating members/machines and connected by some yielding arrangements. Several designs of couplings that are known and available in the field are, for example, gear-tooth, tyre-type, pin-bush type, fluid type, Metallic membrance type or spring grip type. For small drives operating at moderate speed where low cost is the only consideration, there are several types of flexible coupling using leather, rubber, fabric or steel lamination as the flexible element." "It is, however, experienced that the hitherto known flexible couplings have certain limitations insofar as high flexibility in all the planes, desired shock absorption and/or desired damping of vibration cannot be achieved. Moreover, in most of the hitherto known flexible couplings there is scope of relative movement between the connecting part of the couplings, thereby causing excessive wear and tear. Significantly, it is not sufficient that the coupling be perfectly balanced when installed, but it must remain in balance after wear has taken place and in case of excessive wear the entire objective of flexible coupling fails". The next document is an advertisement issued by the respondent No. 1. This document mentions as follows: "Vulkan coupling: Highly flexible Vulkan coupling is a rubber fabric type coupling flexible in all direction and of high durability. Since 1952 this coupling has been employed successfully in various driving systems. The coupling can be employed upto a power range of 50,000 KPM. Due to high torsional flexibility and good damping properties, almost all unfavourable vibration conditions can be resolved with this coupling". 11. THE said document further mentions that the couplings are now being manufactured by the respondent in technical co-operation with M/s. Vulkan Kupplungs and Getriebebau Derhard, Lockforth Gmbh and Company. THE next document is a document issued by the respondent No. 1 which inter alia mentions as follows : "THE highly flexible Vulkan Coupling is a rubber fabricated type, flexible in all direction and of high durability. THE next document is a document issued by the respondent No. 1 which inter alia mentions as follows : "THE highly flexible Vulkan Coupling is a rubber fabricated type, flexible in all direction and of high durability. Since 1950 this coupling type has been employed successfully in the most arduous driving systems, the world\ over". "THE coupling can be employed in the nominal rate torque range upto 1,50,000 Kg." "THE Vulkan coupling is far superior to the gear tooth spring Grid, conventional pin- type couplings etc." "Some of the advantages of the Vulkan Couplings are detailed below: (1) There is no relative movement between connected parts and hence there is no wear and tear. (2) THE coupling requires no lubrications and maintenance. (3) Flexible element has a very long life and is the only part which needs replacement. (4) THE coupling is compact and can take large misalignments. (5) THE coupling has very high torsional flexibility and damping properties to absorb torsional vibrations and shock-loads". THE Vulkan coupling therefore is the ultimate coupling for you." THE next document is a literature issued by the respondent No. 1 with regard to highly flexible power transmission coupling. These various types of couplings are being manufactured in India. M/s. ESBI Transmission Pvt. Ltd. is one such Company which is also manufacturing Vulkan EZS coupling under technical collaboration with M/s. Vulkan Kupplungs-und Cetriebebau. B. Hackforth Gmbh and Cp. Kg. West Germany." 12. ACCORDING to the petitioner, the respondent No. 1 had submitted a paper in Seminar held at the Institute of Engineers sometime during 1981 from which it would be evident that the said Samir Bose is not the inventor of the said couplings which form the subject-matter of the impugned patent. That the West German Company had developed such couplings is not disputed by the said Samir Bose. All that he alleges in paragraph 14 of his affidavit affirmed on 3rd May, 1989 is that the improved version of the flexible coupling was invented, designed and developed by him. He also does not dispute that the respondent No. 1 who is now claiming title on the impugned patent No. 157180, had issued the paper in a seminar held at the institute of engineers sometime during 1981. He also does not dispute that the respondent No. 1 who is now claiming title on the impugned patent No. 157180, had issued the paper in a seminar held at the institute of engineers sometime during 1981. In the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by Samir Bose who claims to be the inventor and also the managing director of the respondent No. 1 ESBI Transmission Pvt. Ltd., his case is that various types of couplings, flexible and non-flexible are known and are used in various industries in India since long time. His further case is that he made improvement, hitherto unknown in a particular type of flexible coupling, after under going a thorough research and Trial, and as such improvement was considered to be novel and useful, the respondent No. 1 ESBI sought for patent protection of the improved version of the flexible coupling by filing an application. His case is that he designed the improved version of the flexible couplings. He relies on the complete specification which according to him, describes the nature of the invention and the manner in which it has to be performed. He says that details of various types complete the specification. 13. HE also relies on the Trade Mark 'Vulkan' which is registered in his favour and bearing No. 357127. Of course, this Court in the instant proceedings is not concerned and I do not propose to decide any right flowing from any Trade Mark Registration. This Court is only concerned with the application for revocation of the patent, made under Section 64 of the Patents Act. 14. THE said Mr. Samir Bose and the respondent No. 1 have also in their affidavit craved leave to refer to the records of the writ petition (No. 5704 (W) of 1988) which had been filed by ESBI against various Railway Departments and Port Trust Authorities. It has been stated that the respondent No. 1 obtained an interim order from this Court in the said proceeding on 21st June, 1988. It is significant to note that the respondent No. 1 and the said Mr. Samir Bose did not make the present petitioner as also any of the other manufacturers of flexible couplings as parties to said writ petition though they are to knowledge of the writ petitioner, likely to be seriously affected by the order as prayed for the ESBI Transmission Private Limited in the said writ proceedings. Samir Bose did not make the present petitioner as also any of the other manufacturers of flexible couplings as parties to said writ petition though they are to knowledge of the writ petitioner, likely to be seriously affected by the order as prayed for the ESBI Transmission Private Limited in the said writ proceedings. The said ESBI Corporation in the said writ petition clearly mentions that Relay Corporation and Chawla Industries are the authentic producers of such flexible couplings. The said ESBI also filed a suit, being suit No. 728 of 1983 in which the said Relay Corporation and Chawla Industries were made parties. The name of the petitioner 'Unique' Transmission (India) Private Limited' as one of the authentic producers is also mentioned in paragraph 21 (a) of the petition. However, this Court in the instant proceedings is not concerned with the said writ petition and/or the order obtained therein. Since the respondent No. 1 in the affidavit in opposition relied on the said proceedings, I directed the respondent No. 1 to file copies of the said writ petition and the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the said writ proceedings, and to give production of the originals. 15. FROM the facts of this case as mentioned above and as appearing from the various documents annexed to the petition, it appears inter alia as follows: 1. The Vulkan Company of West Germany developed flexible couplings sometime in 1950 or 1952. 2. Flexible couplings as developed by the Vulkan Company have been widely in use in India, since long prior to the application of the respondent No. 1 for grant of patent in its favour. 3. The drawings and literatures of Vulkan couplings were supplied to Chittaranjan Locomotive Company by the foreign suppliers of Mak Engineers, who also authorized Chittaranjan Locomotive Works to get such Vulkan couplings manufactured indigenously. 4. Since 17th December, 1972 the Chittaranjan Locomotives have placed orders for flexible couplings to indigenous manufacturers including the petitioner in this proceeding and/or its predecessor in title and the said couplings have been described as Vulkan Couplings. 16. IT is nobody's case that Vulkan Company of West Germany was holding any subsisting patent rights in respect of the flexible couplings which have been described both in India as also in Russia as Vulkan couplings, apparently meaning thereby Vulkan type of coupling' or the couplings manufactured or developed by the Vulkans of West Germany. 16. IT is nobody's case that Vulkan Company of West Germany was holding any subsisting patent rights in respect of the flexible couplings which have been described both in India as also in Russia as Vulkan couplings, apparently meaning thereby Vulkan type of coupling' or the couplings manufactured or developed by the Vulkans of West Germany. Until the making of the said application for grant of patent on 23rd April, 1983, no one claimed any right of exclusive manufacture of Vulkan type of couplings in India, and such couplings were popularly described in India as Vulkan couplings'. 17. THE Vulkans of West Germany were forwarding their literature to the intending purchasers with relevant datas in respect of specifications and designs, in India and a number of indigenous manufacturers were manufacturing flexible couplings which were described as 'Vulkan Coupling'. Even orders were placed in India to the indigenous manufacturers for manufacture of Vulkan couplings, giving Vulkan numbers with regard to different Vulkan series, that is EZ, EZS etc. 18. PATENT rights are granted for a limited period in respect of an invention. An invention under Section 2(j) of the PATENTS Act means as hereunder; (i) art, process, method or manner of manufacture; (ii) machine, apparatus or other article; (iii) substance produced by manufacture; and includes any view and useful improvement of any of them and an alleged invention;" Even in the arguments before me, the learned counsel of the respondent No. 1 submitted that his client had no right to claim a patent in respect of such type of flexible couplings which were known and/or manufactured in India on or prior to 23.4.83, that is, the date of the making of the application by the respondent No. 1. It is apparent from the materials before me as also from the affidavits filed in the instant proceedings as also in the said writ proceedings, that there is ample evidence to show that a number of indigenous manufacturers were and had been manufacturing flexible couplings of various types and that they have been describing such couplings as Vulkan couplings. The specifications and various types of couplings manufactured by the Vulkans of West Germany have been within the knowledge of the indigenous manufacturers and the consumers thereof. Even orders were placed describing flexible couplings as Vulkan couplings and the orders mentioned various types of flexible couplings as per specifications of Vulkans. The specifications and various types of couplings manufactured by the Vulkans of West Germany have been within the knowledge of the indigenous manufacturers and the consumers thereof. Even orders were placed describing flexible couplings as Vulkan couplings and the orders mentioned various types of flexible couplings as per specifications of Vulkans. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 fairly submitted that what was known in India or produced in India prior to the date of his application could not be the subject matter of the grant of patent. It is apparent that since long prior to the application of the respondent No. 1, flexible couplings have been manufactured in India and they have been described as Vulkan couplings and even the specifications and numbers given by Vulkans of West Germany had been followed by both the producers and the manufacturers in India. Even the Russian literature refers to flexible couplings as Vulkan couplings. The words Vulkan refers to flexible couplings as Vulkan coupling. The indigenous manufacturers of course put their own brand or trade names on such flexible couplings, for example, the petitioner's brand name is Unique. 19. I asked the learned counsel to show it to me from the complete specification and the claims, the particulars of the alleged technical or mechanical improvement or the specifications thereof which are alleged to be claimed by the respondent No. 1 as an invention. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 has failed to satisfy me that the alleged new improvements are defined in the complete specification. It has been claimed that the respondent No. 1 has achieved various high objectives by the alleged invention by imparting certain characteristics to flexible element of a flexible coupling by way of selecting its special design and particular materials therefore, with the result of producing the high speed torsional flexible couplings economically which can compete with any sophisticated flexible couplings produced abroad. No particulars of the alleged special design or the alleged materials are anywhere given in the alleged complete specification of the claims. Flexible couplings produced by the Indian manufacturers are similar to the specifications and/or designs and/or shapes as produced by the Vulkans of West Germany. No particulars of the alleged special design or the alleged materials are anywhere given in the alleged complete specification of the claims. Flexible couplings produced by the Indian manufacturers are similar to the specifications and/or designs and/or shapes as produced by the Vulkans of West Germany. There may be some changes here or there either in designs or in the materials used but that does not give origin to a patent right nor can the same amount to an invention, unless it is new and useful. The complete specification and the claims have been read before me in great details and I find that the respondent No. 1 has kept each and everything in the complete specification, as vague as possible. No particulars of any specification or technical datas have been given in the complete specification though Section 10 of the Patent Act provides that every complete specification has to fully and particularly describe the invention and its operation or use and the method of performing the invention which is known to the applicant and for which he is entitled to claim protection and to specify the claim or claims defining the scope of the invention for which protection is claimed. 20. ON a close scrutiny it appears that the respondent No. 1 has not given any particulars with regard to the alleged invention of its operation or use or the method by which it is to be performed. He has also failed to disclose the best method of performing the alleged invention which is claimed to be known to the respondent No. 1 for which the alleged claim for protection has been made. The alleged particulars are absolutely vague and uncertain and only of the nature of general observations without any particulars. All the alleged particulars of flexible couplings as described in the alleged invention or of parts therein are of Vulkan type of flexible couplings. The heading given to the alleged invention i.e. flexible coupling is also misleading. Flexible couplings have admittedly been manufactured in India since a long time prior to the application for grant of patent, by various manufacturers. All the alleged particulars of flexible couplings as described in the alleged invention or of parts therein are of Vulkan type of flexible couplings. The heading given to the alleged invention i.e. flexible coupling is also misleading. Flexible couplings have admittedly been manufactured in India since a long time prior to the application for grant of patent, by various manufacturers. It appears to me that the whole object of the respondent No. 1 was to oust all manufacturers of flexible couplings from their established business which they had been carrying on since a long time prior to the date of the application for grant of patent to the knowledge of the petitioner. 21. IT appears also that flexible coupling is otherwise described in the trade as Vulkan coupling which is another name which has been given to such couplings since a long time both in India and abroad. 22. THE drawings given are also similar to the drawings of flexible couplings as have been produced by different manufacturers and/or have been ordered by the Government concerns. The grounds of challenge to the grant of Patent, which have been pressed before me are those under Section 64 (1) (d), (e), (f) and (j), which are as follows :- "64. Revocation of Patents. (1) Subject to the provisions contained in this Act, a patent whether granted before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on the petition of any person interested or of the Central Government or on a counter-claim in suit for infringement of the patent, be revoked by the High Court on any of the following grounds, that is to say". (d) that the subject of any claim of the complete specification is not an invention within the meaning of this Act; (e) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is not new, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim or to what was published in India or elsewhere in any of the documents referred to in Section 13: Provided that in relation to patents granted under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, this clause shall have effect as if the words 'or elsewhere' had been omitted; (f) that the invention so far as claimed in any claim of the complete specification is obvious or does not involve any inventive step, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India or what was published in India or elsewhere before the priority date of the claim: Provided that in relation to patents granted under the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911, this clause shall have effect as if the words "or elsewhere" had been omitted. (j) that the Patent was obtained on a false suggestion or representation". 23. ON a consideration of the entire material before me, I am of the view that the complete specification does not specify nor particularize any alleged invention within the meaning of the said Act. I am also of the view that the complete specification does not disclose any new invention whatsoever, having regard to what was publicly known or publicly used in India before the priority date of the claim or what was published in India or elsewhere. I am further of the view that the alleged invention as claimed in the claim of the complete specification is obvious and does not involve any inventive step, having regard to what was publicly known or used in India or elsewhere before the priority date of the claim. Furthermore, though loud and vague talks of improvement over the known flexible couplings have been made, no particulars of any alleged invention which is new or useful, are to be found either in the complete specification or the claims. Furthermore, though loud and vague talks of improvement over the known flexible couplings have been made, no particulars of any alleged invention which is new or useful, are to be found either in the complete specification or the claims. Furthermore, the heading given to the alleged invention, is a general description, which will embrace within its meaning, all flexible couplings, including those which were admitted by the respondent No. 1 to be known and manufactured by others. No attempt has been made to describe the alleged improved type of flexible coupling in the heading and the apparent intention appears to me, to oust all other manufacturers from manufacturing flexible couplings of Vulkan couplings or Vulkan type of couplings as popularly known and manufactured and used in India since prior to the priority date of the claim. In my opinion, the patent has been obtained on false suggestions, or representations of an alleged invention when there is none to be found either in the complete specification or in the alleged claims apart from bald, vague and uncertain allegation of alleged invention, devoid of particulars of any specifications or technical datas. 24. MR. P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 relied on the judgment reported in Ajoy Industrial Corporation v. Shiro Kanao, 1983 AIR 496, and submitted that an expert evidence should have been given in order to support the case of the petitioner. I do not think that in the facts and circumstances of this case any further or other evidence is necessary. The language used in the complete specification and the claim does not give any particulars of the alleged improvement, nor does it give the particulars of the products which are already there in the market and I do not think that the evidence before me is insufficient to support the case of the petitioner. 25. BOTH the parties relied on the case reported in Biswanath Prosad Radhe Shyam v. H.M. Industries, AIR 1982 SC 1444 . In the said case the Supreme Court held as follows: "It is important to bear in mind that in order to be patentable an improvement on something known, should be something more than a mere workshop improvement; and must independently satisfy the test of invention or an inventive step. In the said case the Supreme Court held as follows: "It is important to bear in mind that in order to be patentable an improvement on something known, should be something more than a mere workshop improvement; and must independently satisfy the test of invention or an inventive step. To be patentable the improvement or the combination must produce a new result, or a new article or a better or cheaper article than before. The combination of old known integers may be so combined that by their working inter-relation they produce a new process of improved result. Mere collection of more than one integers or things, not involving the exercise of any inventive faculty, does not qualify for the grant of a patent. It is not enough, said Lord Davey in Rickman v. Thierry, 1989-14 RPC 105 (HL) that the purpose is new or that there is novelty in the application, so that the article produced is in that sense new, but there must be novelty in the mode of application. By that, I under-stand that in adopting the cold contrivance to the new purpose, there must be difficulties to be overcome, requiring what is called invention, or there may be some ingenuity in the mode of making the adoption. As Dotton L J. put in Blakey and Co. v. Lathem and Co., (1989) 6 RPC 1984 (C.A.)' to be new in the patent sense, the novelty must show invention". In other words, in order to be patentable the new subject matter must involve invention over what is old. Determination of this question, which in reality is a difficult aspect of patent law, has led to considerable conflict of judicial opinions." "This aspect of the law relating to patentable invention as prevailing in Britain, has been neatly summed up in Encyclopaedia Britannica, Vol. 17 p. 453. Since in India, also, the law on the subject is substantially the same, it will be profitable to extract the same hereunder: "A patent can be granted only for manner of new manufacture and although an invention may be new and relate to a manner of manufacture it is not necessarily a 'manner of new manufacture' - it may be only a normal development of an existing manufacture. It is a necessary qualification of a craftsman that he should have the knowledge and ability to vary his method to meet the task before him- a tailor must cut his cloth to suit the fashion of the day - and any monopoly that would interfere with the craftman's use of his skill and knowledge would be intolerable". "A patentable invention, therefore, must involve something which is outside the probable capacity of a craftsman which is expressed by saying it must have 'subject matter' or involve an 'inventive step' 'Novelty' and 'subject matter' are obviously closely allied............. Although these issues must be pleaded separately both are invariably raised by a defendant, and in fact 'subject matter' is the crucial test, for which there may well be novelty not involving an inventive step'. It is hard to conceive how there can be an 'inventive step' without novelty". 26. AS already observed the alleged improvement on something known before is neither particularized nor made specific in the complete specifications or the claims and it cannot be said that new or useful invention appears from the complete specifications or the claims. There are mere vague and uncertain allegations of improvement when the particulars as to the mechanical or chemical or other constructional particulars cannot disclose a new or useful invention specially when it is admitted that a large number of different types of flexible couplings have since long been manufactured and marketed in India by different manufacturers. Mr. P. K. Das relied particularly on the following observations of the Supreme Court, in abovementioned case: "AS pointed out in Arnold v. Bradbury, (1971) 6 Ch A 706 the proper way to construe a specification is not to read the claims first and then see what the full description of the invention is but first to read the description of the invention, in order that the mind may be prepared for what it is, that the invention is to be claimed, for the patentee cannot claim more than he desires to patent. In Parkinson v. Simon, (1984) 11 RPC 463 (CA), Lord Esher N.R. enumerated that as far as possible the claims must be so construed as to give an effective meaning to each of them but the specification and the claims must be looked at and construed together". In Parkinson v. Simon, (1984) 11 RPC 463 (CA), Lord Esher N.R. enumerated that as far as possible the claims must be so construed as to give an effective meaning to each of them but the specification and the claims must be looked at and construed together". According to me in the instant case the description of the alleged invention is too vague and uncertain and is without any particulars and in my opinion no claim of invention could be found on the complete specification specially when the respondent No. 1 admitted that there are various manufacturers of flexible coupling who had been manufacturing flexible couplings since a long time. 27. MR. P. K. Das also relied on the judgment Pope Appliance Corporation v. Spanish River Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd., AIR 1929 PC 38, and also another judgment Canadian General Electric Co. Ltd. v. Fada Radio Ltd., AIR 1930 PC 1. Relying on the said judgments MR. Das submitted that to support a case of prior publication, the entire claims should be contained in the publication. In the instant case it is common case that flexible couplings have been manufactured by various manufacturers since long which the respondent No. 1 in its complete specification has described as hitherto known flexible couplings which included wide range of flexible couplings including those which have been manufactured by Vulkans of West Germany whose literatures were available to the producers or manufacturers or traders or consumers in India. In my opinion, it cannot be said that any type of flexible couplings as were produced by Vulkan of West Germany or by other producers in India or which have been indented for and supplied to various consumers can be described as the subject matter of improvement. It is quite possible that Vulkan of West Germany had registered the patent either in West Germany or other countries and the period of protection of the original invention made by Vulkan had already expired. In any event, it is nobody's case that Vulkan had any patent registered in respect of flexible couplings in India. The Indian Railways and the Port Authorities, whenever they needed indigenously manufactured couplings, indented for the same describing them as Vulkan couplings and ordered the same to be manufactured as per the specification of the Vulkans giving even the Vulkan's series numbers. The Indian Railways and the Port Authorities, whenever they needed indigenously manufactured couplings, indented for the same describing them as Vulkan couplings and ordered the same to be manufactured as per the specification of the Vulkans giving even the Vulkan's series numbers. In April 1983 nobody could claim in India that the known flexible couplings as were being manufactured by Vulkans, could be the subject matter of a new or useful invention. The respondent No. 1 has not even argued that what was already known to the public in the form of the flexible couplings or flexible couplings as manufactured by the Vulkans, which were known or manufactured by Vulkans, which were known or manufactured in India, could be the subject matter of any patent right. The argument made was that the respondent No. 1 was not claiming any patent right in respect of such couplings. It was argued that the respondent No. 1 was only claiming patent rights in respect of the alleged improvement which has been brought about by it. In my opinion no particulars of such improvements are specifically given in the complete specification or in the claims and the whole attempt of the respondent No. 1 was to stop the people from manufacturing any flexible couplings which they have been manufacturing since long prior to April 1983 and which have been commonly known in India. 28. IN my opinion, the language has been kept vague and uncertain with the motive to oust the existing manufacturers from their trade or industry and the heading given in the application also suggests that the whole idea was to have a patent in respect of flexible coupling and/or manufacturing any parts thereof. Mr. P.K. Das also relied on the judgment Rajprakash v. Mangatram Chowdhury and others, AIR 1978 Delhi 1. 29. MR. Das submitted that in construing a specification the Court should not rely too much on the title given to the specification of the invention and according to him the title does not control the actual claim. According to him, a misleading title similarly is of little consequence. He relied on the following observations of the Delhi High Court which are set out below: "Sometimes people fall into error in construing specifications by relying too much on the title given to the specifications of the invention. According to him, a misleading title similarly is of little consequence. He relied on the following observations of the Delhi High Court which are set out below: "Sometimes people fall into error in construing specifications by relying too much on the title given to the specifications of the invention. It is settled law that title of the specifications of the invention claimed does not control the actual claim. A misleading title similarly is of little consequence. It is on a proper construction of the specifications and the claims that the true nature of the invention claimed is to be determined and the patent granted has to be construed. P 33 R33 of the Indian Patents and Designs Rules, 1933 inter alia, lays down that the title should give a fair indication of the art or industry to which the invention relates. It should be brief, free from fancy expression, free from ambiguity and as precise and definite as possible, but it need not go into the details of the invention itself. Thus, the rule itself indicates that the title of the specifications does not govern the specifications or the claims. In Brereton v. Richardson, 1884 RPC 165 Field, J put the proposition rather succinctly and we may be allowed the liberty to quote: "Therefore, as I said just now, let us see what the plaintiff's invention is. The title is certainly somewhat misleading. MR. Macrory did not put it as anything serious, nor is it serious, because after all you must read the title by the means of the specification. The title is that it is for 'A new or improved tricycle', that is per se a machine. The complete specification and the provisional specification do not altogether agree with each other. At first that seemed to threaten a technical ground that they had claimed by their complete specification more than was covered by their provisional specification, but, very fairly and very prudently, I think the defendant did not proceed upon that, because, after all, the great object to both parties must be to have their rights settled for the future, without reference to any question of that sort, that being a comparatively immaterial question." 30. I have considered the complete specification and the claims and I am of the view that the true nature of the alleged invention is not particularized nor specified in the same. I have considered the complete specification and the claims and I am of the view that the true nature of the alleged invention is not particularized nor specified in the same. The entire statements are of a general nature and vague in terms, making loud claim of more efficient, more economic and better service etc. It cannot be ascertained as to what is the actual improvement in respect of which the invention is claimed. The respondent No. 1 can only claim patent right in respect of an invention within the meaning of the said Act and not in respect of what is not 'invention'. The idea of the respondent No. 1 appears to be that of making claims of improvement, but no improvement has been specified and the entire right of manufacture of flexible couplings has been sought to be claimed which couplings even according to the respondent No. 1, have been manufactured and produced by different manufacturers indigenously. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to an order for revocation of the impugned patent. 31. THERE will be an order that the Indian Patent No. 157180 granted in favour of ESBI Transmission Pvt. Ltd., the respondent No. 1 for flexible coupling be and is hereby revoked under the provisions of Section 64 of the Patents Act, 1970. 32. THERE will also be an order in terms of prayer (b) of the petition. The respondent No. 1 will pay the cost of this application. Stay of operation of this order is asked for and is declined.