How Article 33 Should Be Read! My Dilemma!

 

How Article 33(1) be read with Article 33(2) & (3), I’ll elucidate in the herein underneath paragraphs, as it has been wrongly read Globally.  

If any claim passes the litmus test of Article 33(1) sans hiccups, then it ought to have passed the litmus test of Article 33(2) & (3). But I’ve no idea why Article 33 (1) and its subsections (2), (3) are being intertwined WRONGLY! As the third part mentions about the obviousness to check inventive step; the second part mentions about the prior arts; and the first deals with the novelty + industrially applicability + inventive step; which according to me is a paradoxical contention. I’ll explain how!

Now, distinguishing between novelty and inventive step is an UNNEEDED step, as what is novel would implicitly constitute an inventive step! And what is an inventive step would obviously be non-obvious! YET, if being done, then this analogy is applicable: like saying that a certain claim has industrial applicability, BUT, that can’t be produced industrially!

Thus, what is novel (no prior arts existing), then it implicitly passes the litmus test of inventive step, according to me, and therefore no need to check for the obviousness! And what is an inventive step, then it implicitly passes the litmus test of novelty. And then further implicitly passes the litmus test of patentability, IF, it has industrial applicability.

But everywhere, a paradoxical situation is created. Take this example. What is novel, but is said to have no inventive step, YET, is furthermore constituted as industrially applicable; does this statement even make sense?

Now, take another example: what is novel, and is further an inventive step, BUT, is not industrially applicable; now this makes a correct statement for non-patentability; and NOT by equating novelty and inventive steps from different lens; as according to me, both are intertwined to each other.

Thus, what my theory says is that the distinction shouldn’t be made between the novelty and inventive step, rather, the major distinction should be evaluated between novelty & inventive step VS industrially applicability. As once any novelty or an inventive step fails the litmus test of industrial applicability, then at that moment, it also fails the litmus test of patentability as well.  

All over World, this basic theory is NOT applied (so far what I’ve read). And this is how Article 33 (1) is read with Article 33(2), (3). Or maybe, Article 33 should be Redrafted!

Am I lost in the interpretation? Maybe Not! 😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi