Obviousness analysis is a pivotal aspect of patent law, focusing on the level of inventiveness required for a patent to be granted. It operates under the premise that if an invention is obvious for someone with skills in the relevant field also known as the ‘Person Skilled in the Art’ (PSITA), then it does not qualify for patent protection. This principle is crucial in preventing the monopolization of inventions that are simply logical extensions of existing knowledge. Since obviousness is adjudicated from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, the initial steps for determining obviousness entail identifying the field of invention and the person skilled in the art.

In the case of Galatea Ltd. vs The Controller of Patents and Ors. [(T) CMA (PT) No.19 of 2023 (OA/1/2021/PT/CHN)], the Madras High Court addressed in detail the notional person skilled in the art (PSITA) .

Relying on their earlier judgment in citing Rhodia Operations v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, 2024:MHC:6024, the Court held that the Indian Patents Act lays down different standards for person skilled in the art for assessment of sufficiency of disclosure and for assessment of obviousness. For the purpose of sufficiency of disclosure, section 64(1)(h) of the Patents Act indicates that the person skilled in the art is:

• A person in India, and
• Possesses average skill in, and average knowledge of, the art to which the invention relates.

For the purpose of determining obviousness, the following traits are possessed by the person skilled:

• Can be based anywhere in the world,
• Has access to all knowledge in the field prior to the invention under evaluation,
• Has the ability to do a job/task/activity well,
• Has a good or greater than average level of skill,
• Is imaginative,
• Has relevant qualifications and work experience,
• Is able to use the tools of the trade,
• Does not ordinarily connotate a person with inventive capability,
• Except for his unreal level of knowledge, should mirror a real person proficient in the art as closely as possible,
• Does not have an unreal ability to combine or weave together elements of the prior art unless there are clear pointers, direct or indirect, in that regard, in the prior art.

The Court further identified the following in relation to the person skilled in the art for determining obviousness.

• Knowledge imputed to a person skilled in the art is only of the relevant field of endeavor,
• Identifying field of invention plays a significant role in identifying the person skilled in the art and imputing said person with knowledge of prior art in such field.
• Where people from more than one field of endeavor should work together for arriving at the invention, a PSITA team (person skilled in the art team) should be assembled.
• The constitution of the PSITA team should not be determined on the basis of the solution provided by the invention under evaluation as there could be inventiveness in integrating concepts from two unrelated art.
• Instead, the closest prior art should be examined to ascertain whether the PSITA team should include a specialist from another discipline.
• If the invention lies in marrying two disparate disciplines with no indication in prior art of such marriage, obviousness should be gleaned from the perspective of the specialists in each discipline independently, but not from the perspective of the two specialists acting in combination.