,
D.P.S. Parmar, Technical Member",
1 . This is an application for revocation of the patent No. 193899 bearing title ""Process for Preparation of Low Glycemic Sweets"" granted to",
Krishnamachari Ramu and Ms. R. Lavanya on 30.12.2005.,
2 . A suit for infringement of this patent 193899 is pending. Hon'ble High Court of Madras in C.S. No. 495 of 2006 has granted an interim injunction,
for infringement of Patent No 193899 (the patent in question) and 200285. The applicant being the affected person consequently qualifies as an,
interested person under Section 64.,
3 . This case came before us on 30.08.2011, Shri A. Prabakara Reddy, Advocate appeared for the applicant and Shri A.A. Mohan, Advocate",
appeared for the respondent.,
4 . This invention relates to process for preparation of Low Glycemic Sweets. The respondent stated that their invention is novel as they have solved,
the problem relating to browning of the fructose syrup.,
5 . In the background of the invention they stated that several attempts have been made with natural sugar substitutes such as fructose but they have,
suffered from problems of undesirable browning due to caramelization when heated to elevated temperatures and browning of sweet meat due to,
reaction between carbohydrate and protein. Use of other sugar-based alcohols in the production of confectionery products has also not been,
successful as they have been rejected by consumers due to their laxative properties and low levels of sweetness.,
6. Sorbitol as a sugar substitute has however been used in the production of one of the hardboiled sweets based on freshly prepared cottage cheese,
(paneer in India) in Sorbitol syrup called ""rasagulla"". However, the draw back with Sorbitol is that its Glycemic Index value (GI) is not low enough for",
consumption by people who have diabetic tendencies. The sweetness index of Sorbitol is significantly lower than that of cane sugar and is therefore,
less satiating than sugar. Moreover Sorbitol has fairly high laxative property and hence is not suitable for general consumption.,
7. Literature has examples in which certain chocolates, ice creams and biscuits have been prepared from a set of nutritive/non-nutritive sweeteners.",
However, such confectioneries do not use syrups cooked at elevated temperatures as in the case of the Asian or Indian Sweetmeats.",
8 . There is a longstanding need in the confectionery industry to produce traditional sweets (of the nature manufactured and consumed in the Indian,
Subcontinent), with low glycemic index suitable for all consumers and especially for consumers with diabetics or with diabetic tendencies, maintaining",
the same organoleptic textural and visual properties of sweets conventionally produced using from cane sugar.,
Summary of the Invention,
The main object of the invention is to provide process for the preparation of sweetmeats of low Glycemic Index using fructose singly or in combination,
with or without other nutritive and non nutritive sweeteners without the problem of browning during or after the processing at elevated temperatures.,
Another object of the invention is to provide processes for the preparation of fructose syrups of variable viscosity and high consistency, without",
browning, rendering it stable without decomposing when exposed to elevated temperatures for prolonged period, at the same time maintaining the",
organoleptic and visual characteristics of sucrose based syrups making them suitable for the preparation of sweetmeats of low Glycemic Index.,
Yet another object of the invention is to provide confectionery and sweetmeat preparations of low glycemic index that include among other,
ingredients, milk/cereal/lentil/nut based ingredients and their like, requiring elevated temperatures for cooking most importantly ensuring that the",
product does not brown during or after the preparation of the same.,
The manufacturing process of this invention comprises of one or more of the following steps:,
The preparation of non-browned fructose syrup,
The use of non-browned fructose syrup in the final manufacture of the sweetmeat with low glycemic index,
Simultaneous manufacture of non-browned fructose syrup and manufacture of non-browned sweet meat as may be required with low glycemic index,",
in a single step.,
9. The claims of the specification are given below:,
1. A process for the preparation of low glycemic sweets comprising the steps of,
a. the preparation of non-browned fructose syrup as herein described.,
b. The preparation of sweets by using the fructose syrup of step (i) as herein described and,
c. Optionally, adding fructose powder or fructose syrup of step (i) to the sweet prepared under step (ii) in required quantity to obtain required",
sweetness.,
2. The process as claimed in Claim 1 wherein process of preparation of non-browned fructose syrup comprising the steps of,
a. dissolution of fructose powder in pure water to form a solution normally with of viscosity of at least 1.2 cps.,
b. Purging of inert gas or super heated steam through the solution.,
c. Progressive heating the fructose solution to boiling.,
d. Controlling and monitoring the viscosity of the fructose syrup from about 1.2 cps. To upto 1,00,000 cps based on the specific requirement of the",
sweetmeat to be prepared.,
e. Cooling of the fructose syrup to the ambient temperature.,
3 . The process of claimed in Claim 2 wherein the process of preparation of non-browned fructose syrup comprising the steps of,
a. dissolution of fructose powder in pure water to form a solution normally with of viscosity of at least 1.2 cps.,
b. Purging of inert gas/s at about 2.5 kg/sq cm to 5 kg/sq cm through the solution for a period of 10 - 15 minutes.,
c. Progressive heating the fructose solution to boiling with purging of the solution with inert gas (s) and maintaining a blanket of inert gas (s) on the,
surface of the solution during heating.,
d. Controlling and monitoring the viscosity of the fructose syrup from 1.2 cps to upto 1, 00,000 cps based on the specific requirement of the sweetmeat",
to be prepared.,
e. Increasing the pressure of the inert gas(s) on the solution with increase in viscosity of the fructose syrup to ensure inert gas blanket on the solution,
surface.,
f. Cooling of the fructose syrup under the inert gas blanket.,
g. Preparing fructose syrup of varying viscosities and storing in vacuum or inert gas atmosphere,
4 . The process as claimed in claim 2 wherein the process of preparation of non-browned fructose syrup comprising the steps of,
a. heating the solution of Fructose in a closed chamber with outlet for steam release.,
b. Progressively heating the fructose solution providing heat input through super heated steam at pressure ranging from about 2 to about 10 times the,
atmospheric pressure.,
c. Controlling and monitoring the time of heating so as to obtain fructose with viscosity varying from 1.2 cps upto 1,00,000 cps based on the specific",
requirement of the sweetmeat to be prepared.,
d. Storing the fructose syrup in vacuum or inert gas atmosphere.,
5 . The process as claimed in Step III of claim 2 wherein optionally, the prolonged heating of the fructose solution at low pressure or vacuum in a",
closed chamber at temperature ranging from 60 o C to 80o C,
a. prolonged heating the fructose solution at low pressure or vacuum in a close chamber at temperatures at about 60 degrees to 80 o C,
b. controlling and monitoring the time of heating so as to obtain fructose syrup with viscosity varying from about 1.2 cps upto about 1,00,000 cps based",
on the specific requirement of the sweetmeat to be prepared.,
c. Storing the fructose syrup in a container with vacuum till it cools to room temperature.,
6. The process as claimed in step III of claim 1 wherein,
a. preparation of the non-browned fructose syrup of viscosity lower than the viscosity needed for the particular sweet as described above,
b. adjusting the pH between about 2 to about 6.5 by conventional methods/optionally in the presence of fats,
c. cooking and or preparing the sweetmeat stock without fructose,
d. adding appropriate quantity of the fructose syrup under inert gas bubbling till the completion of the process or optionally dividing the sweetmeat,
mass is into masses of suitable quantities and shapes and introducing into the prepared fructose solution of fructose of appropriate strength, already",
brought to boiling point under inert gas bubbling and inert gas cover wherein the entire solution with solid mass is continuously heated until the solid,
mass is well cooked or cooking and or preparing the sweet meat mass, optionally in fat, without adding fructose in initial stage but later adding, near",
the end stage, appropriate quantity of fructose powder or fructose syrup; wherein inert gas is bubbled through the fructose syrup containing the sweet",
meat mass.,
e. Optionally adding herbal extracts, flavouring agents, antioxidants, stablizers, preservatives etc.",
f. Cooling of the mass to near room temperature maintaining bubbling of the inert gas or inert gas cover.,
g. Optionally adding extra fructose crystals/fructose syrup as may be required to obtain required sweetness.,
7. The process as claimed in claim 6 wherein when the sweetmeat is cooked in a fat the entire mass is heated at low temperature (60 o C to 80 o C),
by bubbling inert gas or under negative pressure cover and bringing the cooked mass to room temperature under negative pressure cover in inert gas,
blanket.,
8. The process as claimed in claim 1 wherein the preparation of low glycemic index sweets is optionally carried out by using dry form of fructose,
instead of fructose syrup prepared as described here above.,
9. The process as claimed in claim 8 wherein the preparation of low glycemic index sweets comprising the steps of,
a. Mixing of fructose with the formulation of the sweetmeat,
b. Cooking of the formulation with through mixinig at low heat under an inert gas blanket,
c. Keeping the pH between 2 and 6.5,
d. Optionally purging inert gas through a perforated sieve at a higher pressure, between about 4 kg per sq cm to about 10 kg per sq cm, to ensure that",
enough gas permeates through the mass being processed.,
e. Cooling of the mass under the blanket of inert gas,
f. Casting or dividing the cooked mass into desirable sizes and shapes,
10. The process as claimed in claim 8 & 9 wherein the low glycemic index sweets prepared are either in dry or in semidry form,
11. The process as claimed in any of the preceding claims wherein the sweet meat mass is optionally divided into masses of suitable quantities and,
shapes before introducing into fructose syrup.,
1 2 . A process for the preparation of low glycemic index sweets is substantially as herein described and exemplified.,
Petitioners Case,
10. Shri Prabakara Reddy counsel for the applicant in his argument before us stated that the specifications disclose neither any invention nor any,
inventive step in the specification. The counsel for the applicant relied on the grounds of revocation given under Section 64(1)(d), (f), (g), (h) and (q)",
pleaded for revocation of the patent.,
11. The grounds on which the applicant relied are as follows:,
Subject matter of the Patent is not novel,
Subject matter of the Patent is not involves an inventive step,
Subject matter of the Patent is not patentable,
Subject matter of the Patent has no industrial applicability,
Subject matter of the Patent is not a technical advancement over the prevailing know-how,
Subject matter of the Patent is obvious.,
Lack of Inventive step (64 (1)(d),
12. The counsel for the applicant argued that the ""Patentee herein having admitted in the complete specification that already the Indian sweets with",
sugar made from cane/fructose being available, the patent granted is liable to be revoked. It is further seen though the patentees claim for invention in",
respect of the alleged process for preparation of non-browned fructose syrup, the examples given for preparation of various Indian sweets which is",
part of the specification for the alleged invention makes the said alleged process of making non-browning fructose syrup as optional. Therefore the,
patentees themselves admit that absolutely there is no inventive step in the patent in question for the alleged process which is said to be used in the,
present alleged invention for the product.""",
Patent is obvious,
13. The counsel for the applicant submitted that the patentee misled the of controller by stating that the browning of sweet is due to maillard reaction,
and caramelisation of levulose when heated to elevated temperatures particularly due to reaction between carbohydrate and protein which is,
disadvantageous and undesirable. In fact, the caramelisation is a natural process. The counsel for the applicant submitted that as per the",
caramelisation details given in Encyclopedia of food and culture ""Caramelisation and maillard reactions ( responsible for browning) requires",
temperatures that cannot be reached when water is present (the boiling point of water limits the cooking temperature to 212 of or less).,
Caramalisation stars at around 310 of, and maillard reactions even higher"". Therefore the claim for minimizing caramelisation and maillard reactions at",
lower temperature is misleading and not correct. In fact, caramalisation in the fructose forms when fructose is heated at about 110oC. as per the",
established scientific principles.,
He further contended that sugar made of cane also undergoes the process of caramelisation but only at little higher temperature than the fructose.,
Thus caramelisation adds to certain flavor and colour which is desirable for any sweet. It is seen that the patentee has given several processes for,
preparation of non-browned fructose syrup. The applicant takes strong objection to this particularly even in the sweets prepared with sugar made from,
cane also undergoes the process of caramelisation. The detail description as given by the patentees in respect of the alleged invention do not disclose,
any invention and it is also not new but it is obvious and normal practice in preparation of Indian sweets as all the description given are in the normal,
practice of preparing and making Indian sweets. The patentee cannot claim any right for invention. It is very interesting that one of the processes,
described in the complete specification is heating solution of fructose in closed chamber with outlet for steam release in the range of 2 to about 12,
times the atmospheric pressure and producing viscosity from 1.12 CPS upto 1,00,000 CPS. This is too wide and vague and involves no invention or",
new inventive step. Interestingly another process described in the specification is heating fructose solution at low pressure at 60-80 oC. In fact,",
caramalisation in the fructose forms when fructose is heated at about 110oC as per the established scientific principles. Therefore it is clearly seen,
that the complete specification does not give any new method or process or teaches any method or process for making fructose syrup as browning is,
not likely to occur in presence of water as the cooking temperature will not exceed 100 oC.,
Common knowledge 64(1)(q),
1 4 . According to counsel of the applicant the description of the invention as contained in the specification being already in the common knowledge,
and is being extensively practiced in the industry, the patentee cannot claim to be the inventor of the said process. Moreover, the said disclosures are",
very vague and not comprehensive particularly with regard to the methods of heating and obtaining viscosity. The viscosity is obtained by heating,
sugar or fructose and the description of the invention as given in the complete specification lacks inventive step. The description of invention as made,
in the complete specification for manufacturing sweets of low Glycemic index also is not new and is commonly practiced in the industry. The very,
description given in the complete specification abundantly makes it very obvious involving no inventive step. The specifications or the examples,
appended to the specifications do not disclose any invention. The examples for preparation of the product for which the patent is claimed are very well,
known publicly and being used by everyone in the preparation of Indian sweets. In fact the patentees obtained product patent for all Indian sweets,
without showing any inventive steps in the specifications.,
15. The specifications do not disclose any invention. The patentee having admitted that Indian sweets are made using fructose even prior to the filing,
of the application for grant of patent cannot claim any patent for the said alleged invention.,
1 6 . The manner and the method of preparation the product as given in the specifications do not teach any new process or product.,
1 7 . That the examples for description of the invention are also in the common knowledge and practice which makes it very clear that the invention,
lacks any inventive step and is obvious.,
18. That the claim as made in claim 1 cannot be considered as invention for the reasons stated above. The claim as made in claim 1(c) makes it very,
clear that the patent obtained by the patentee is a frivoulous claim without having any inventive step,
19. That the claim as made in claim 2 also do not disclose any invention for the reasons stated supra that all the steps stated in claim 2 are in the,
common knowledge and wisdom and is being used by everyone in the industry.,
20. That the claim as made in claim 3 also are normal steps and practice used in preparation of Indian sweets and do not disclose any invention.,
21. That the claim as made in claim 4 also do not disclose any invention for the reasons stated supra that all the steps stated in claim 4 are in the,
common knowledge and wisdom and is being used by everyone in the industry.,
22. That the other claims as made in claims 5 also do not disclose any invention for the reasons stated supra that all the steps stated in claim 2 are in,
the common knowledge and wisdom and is being used by everyone in the industry.,
23. That the process claimed in claim 6 is also in the common realms of knowledge and practice. The patentee cannot claim any invention in the,
process,
24 . The patentees have obtained patent monopoly for Indian sweets made using fructose by misleading and playing fraud on the Controller of Patents,",
the patent is liable to be revoked.,
2 5 . The manner and method of preparing the product is very vague and is not comprehensive particularly with regards to the method of heating and,
obtaining viscosity and the patent is liable to be revoked under section 64(1) (h) of the Patents Act, 1970.",
26. The admission made by the patentees that the Indian sweets with sugar made from cane/fructose being available exposes that the claim of the,
patentee were anticipated and the same was also available in the knowledge of greater Indian public prior to the claim made by the patentees Hence,
the patent is liable to be revoked under section 64(1)(q) of the Patents Act,1970.",
27. The title of the invention is process for preparation of low glycemic sweets. The counsel for petitioner submitted that invention relates to the novel,
process for preparing of fructose syrup without specifying the viscosity with is common general knowledge. Further one process is disclosed for all,
kinds of viscosities for all sweets. Inventors used one process for making all kind of sweets without specifying the viscosity. Oxidation leads to,
browning and if there is no oxidation there is no browning.. It is further seen though the patentees claim for invention in respect of the alleged process,
for preparation of non-browned fructose syrup, the examples given for preparation of various Indian sweets which is part of the specification for the",
alleged invention makes the said alleged process of making non-browning fructose syrup as optional. Therefore the patentees themselves admit that,
absolutely there is no inventive step in the present patent.""",
2 8 . The detail description as given by the patentees in respect of the alleged invention do not disclose any invention but it is obvious and normal,
practice in preparation of Indian sweets as all the description given are in the normal practice of preparing and making sugar syrup. It is very,
interesting that one of the processes described in the complete specification is heating solution of fructose in closed chamber with outlet for steam,
release in the range of 2 to about 12 times the atmospheric pressure and producing viscosity from 1.12 CPS upto 1,00,000 CPS. This is too wide and",
vague.,
29. According to the specification non brown syrup may be prepared as follows.,
Dissolution of Fructose powder in pure water to form a saturated solution normally with of Viscosity of around 1.2 cps.,
Purging of inert gas(s) at about 2.5 kg/sq cm to 5 kg/sq cm through the solution for a period of 10 - 15 minutes,
Progressive heating the fructose solution to boiling with purging of the solution with inert gas(s) and maintaining a blanket of inert gas(s) on the surface,
of the solution during heating.,
Controlling and monitoring the viscosity of the fructose syrup from about 1.2 cps to upto 1,00,000 cps based on the specific requirement of the",
sweetmeat of confectionary to be prepared.,
Increasing the pressure of the inert gas(s) on the solution with increase in viscosity of the Fructose syrup to ensure inert gas blanket on the solution,
surface.,
Cooling of the fructose syrup under the inert gas blanket.,
But for preparing Mysore Pak browning is required. Therefore purging of inert gas for checking browning is not inventive step. Further controlling and,
monitoring step is too vide and vague in view of the vide range between 1.2cps to 100,00cps. Further as per one embodiment purging is optional",
In yet another embodiment of the process, the low glycemic index sweetmeats may be prepared in dry or semi-dry form using dry form of fructose",
instead of syrup by process comprising of steps as described herein.,
Mixing of Fructose with the formulation of the sweetmeat,
Cooking of the formulation with through mixing at low heat under an inert gas blanket,
Keeping the pH between 2 and 6.5,
SUGAR,FRUCTOSE
Take 10 litrs of milk
Add approx. 1kg of sugar
Heat the above milk to boil continuously for 30 mts.
M i x it well till it comes to 35% of l0ltrs now add 1 kg of
ghee in 3 intervals and allow the ghee to get mix ed along
with the kova for 10 mts by reducing the flame.","Take 10 ltrs of milk
Heat the above milk to boil continuously for 30 mts
Mi x.it well till it comes to 35% of 10 ltrs
n o w add 850 grams of fructose to the above now add 1
kg of ghee in 3 intervals and allow the ghee to get mixed
along with the kova for 10 mts by reducing the flame
Add approx.5 grams of elachi powder Milk haiwa is
ready to serve","Add approx. 5 gms of elachi powder Milk halwa made
out of fructose is ready to serve.
KOVA BURPHEE, MILK BURPHEE, MALA1 PEDA",
Take 10 Itrs of milk Add approx. 1kg of sugar Heat the
above milk to boil continuously for 45 mts. M i x it well till
it comes to 27% of 10 ltrs Add approx.5 grams of elachi
powder
N o w put the above preparation in the S.S. tray allow the
preparation to come room temperature. C u t it to the
required shape and size. Now KovaBurphee is ready to
serve.
C u t it to the required shape and size.
Now KovaBurphee is ready to serve","Heat the above milk to boil continuously for 45 mts. Mi
x.it well till it comes to 27% of 10 ltrs reduce the flame
and Add approx. 850grams of fructose, mix it well till
such time fructose is evenly mixed Add approx.5 grams
of elachi powder
Add approx.5 grams of elachi powder N o w put the
above preparation in the S.S. tray
allow the preparation to come room
temperature.
Cut it to the required shape and size
,Now KovaBurphee is ready to serve
CHOKOLATE BURPHEE,
Take 10 !trs of milk
Add approx. 1kg of sugar
Heat the above milk to boil continuously for 45 mts.
M i x it well till it comes to 35% of 10 ltrs
N o w add 60 grams of chocolate powder and mix it
properly till the consistency is 27 of the above
Add approx.5 grams of elachi powder Now put the above
preparation in the S.S. tray allow the preparation to come
room Temperature.
C u t it to the required shape and size.
N o w Chokolate Burphee is ready to serve","Take 10 Itrs of milk
Heat the above milk to boil continuously for 45 mts.
Mix it well till it comes to 27% of 10 ltrs now add 60
grams of chocolate powder to the above reduce the flame
and
Add approx. 850 grams of fructose is mix it well till such
time fructose is evenly mixed Add approx.5 grams of
elachi powder
Now put the above preparation in the S.S. tray allow the
preparation to come room temperature.
Cut it to the required shape and size.
Now Chokolate Burphee is ready to serve
KESARIPEDA,
Take 10 Itrs of milk,Take 10 Itrs of milk
Add approx. 1kg of sugar,
Heat the above milk to boil continuously for 45 mts,Heat the above milk to boil continuously for 45 mts
M i x it well till it comes to 35% of 10 ltrs,
Now add 1/2 gram saffron and mix it properly till the
consistency is 27% of the above.","Mix it well till it comes to 27% of 10 ltrs now add of to
the above reduce the flame and Add approx. 850 grams
of fructose, mix it well till such time fructose is evenly
mixed
Add approx.5 grams of elachi powder allow the
preparation to come room temperature",
N o w put the above preparation in the available die Put it
in the die and serve `","Add approx 5 grams of elachi powder, allow the
preparation to come room temperature
N o w put the above preparation in the available die and
serve.
RASAGULLA,
4 0 Itrs of milk boiled upto 100 degrees,
Remove the milk from fire allow it to come to 70 degrees
A d d required amount of venigar (approximately 100ml)
along with plain water
M i x it well till the chenna separated from milk
Using white mustin cloth filter swill the entire wafer
removed,
To the above preparation add approx. 35 grams of raw
maida
Kneeding the above preparation till such time till getting
properly mixed","40 ltrs of milk boiled upto 100 degrees,
Remove the milk from fire allow it to come to 70 degrees
A d d required amount of venigar (approximately 100 ml)
along with plain water
M i x it well till the chenna separated from milk Using
white mustin cloth filter swill the entire water-removed,
To the above preparation add approx. 35 grams of raw
maida
Kneeding the above preparation till such time it
getting properly mixe
ZEERA 1 FOR COOKING RASAGULLA,
Take 5kgs of sugar add 7 Itrs of water mix properly till
such time sugar is completely dissolved","Take 5kg of fructose add 15 Itrs of water mix it properly
till such time fructose is completely dissolved
Allow the syrup to boil 100 degrees now make the chenna
into smaller bolls (required shape and size)
Allow the syrup to boil 105 degrees now make the chenna
into smaller bolls (required shape and size)","Put these bolls into the boiling zeera syrup and cook for
15 mts.
Add 15 grams of maida with w h a v e water and
sprinklet while the syrup is boiling and rotate the syrup
continuously
Put these bolls into the boiling zeera syrup and cook it for
15 mts.",T i l l such time the chenna is cooked
Add little amount of 15 grams of maida with whave water
and sprinklet while the syrup is boiling and rotate the
syrup.",SUGAR SYRUP FOR SOKING
T i l l such time the chenna is cooked,"Take 7 1/2 Itrs of water and boiled it to 100 degrees put
the flame of Now add 4 kgs of fructose in it and mix it till
such time fructose is completely dissolved.
SUGAR SYRUP FOR SOKING,
Take 5kgs of sugar add 7 Itrs of water mix it properly till
such time sugar is completely dissolved","Now switch the flame on and keep it in a mild heat (100
degrees) and allow the above preparation to boil till the
required consistency
Allow the syrup to boil 100 degrees Now add 50ml of raw
milk into the syrup to remove the impurities available in
the sugar. Allow the syrup to boil and remove the
impurities floating. 1
Repeat the same till such time the syrup is clear.","N o w soak the prepared rasagulla in the above prepared
zeera
T o the consistency what you require
N o w soak the prepared rasagulla in the above
preparedzeera.",
RASAMALAI,
4 0 Itrs of milk boiled upto 100 degrees, Remove the milk
from fire allow it to come to 70 degrees A d d required
amount of venigar (approximately 100ml) along with plain
water","40 ltrs of milk boiled upto 100 degrees, Remove the milk
from fire allow it to come to 70 degrees A d d required
amount of venigar (approximately 100 ml) along with plain
water
M i x it well till the chenna separated from mill^'"" Using
white mustin cloth filter swill the entire water removed,","M i x it well till the chenna separated from milk Using
white mustin cloth filter swill the entire water removed,
To the above preparation add approx. 35 grams of raw
maida","To the above preparation add approx. 35 grams of raw
maida
Kneeding the above preparation till such time it getting
properly mixed","Kneeding the above preparation till such time it getting
properly mixed
ZEERA 1 FOR COOKING RASAMALAI,
Take 5 kgs of sugar add 7 Itrs of water mix it properly till
such time sugar is completely dissolved","Take 4kg of fructose add 12 Itrs of water mix it properly
till such time fructose is completely dissolved
Allow the syrup to boil 105 degrees now mark the chenna
into smaller bolls (required shape and size)","Allow the syrup to boil 100 degrees now make the chenna
into smaller bolls (required shape and size)
Put these bolls into the boiling zeera syrup and cook it for
15 mts","P u t s these bolls into the boiling zeera syrup and cook it
for 15 mts. Add 15 grams of maida with w h a v e water
and sprinklet while the syrup is boiling and rotate the
syrup continuously T i l l such time the chenna is cooked
,SUGAR SYRUP FOR SOKING
Add little amount of 15 grams of maida with whave water
and sprinklet while the syrup is boiling and rotate the
syrup.","Take 1 ½ Itrs of water and boiled it to 100 degrees
put flame of
T i l l such time the chenna is cooked,"N o w add 750 grams of fructose in it and mix it till s u c
h time fructose is completely dissolved. Now switch the
flame on and keep it in a mild heat (100 degrees) and
allow the above preparation to boil till the required
consistency
SUGAR SYRUP FOR SOKING,
Take 5kgs of sugar add 7 Itrs of water mix it properly till
such time sugar is completely dissolved","N o w soak the prepared rasamalai in the above prepared
zeera.
Allow the syrup to boil 100 degrees Now add 50ml of raw
milk into the syrup to remove the impurities available in
the sugar. Allow the syrup to boil and remove the
impurities floating. Repeat the same till such time the
syrup is clear. T o the consistency what you require Now
soak the prepared rasamalai in the above",
Take 5 Itrs of milk boil it to 70, add 1 gram of saffron","Take 5 ltrs of milk boil it to 70, add 1 gram of saffron
Cool the above milk to room temperature,Cool the above milk to room temperature
Now remove the rasamalai from zeera squeeze it then
soak it in the above prepared milk.","Now remove the rasamalai from zeera squeeze it then
soak it in the above prepared milk.
sweetmeat into the prepared levulose solution under inert gas bubbling until the solid mass is well cooked.,
Common general knowledge,
33. The counsel for applicant argued that no new knowledge is taught in making Fructose/ levulose syrup without browning and there is no new,
invention and there is no disclosure of invention as prevention of browning (caramalisation) by maintaining low temperature is common general,
knowledge as seen from citation (A1). The process of controlled heating of a sweet is already known. Since no elevated temperature beyond 60oC to,
80oC is disclosed in the specification the browning will not occur at all. It is further submitted that as given in the citation the browning occurs only at a,
temperature between 100oC to 120oC. Therefore, the claimed process is obvious as preparing levulose based sweets without browning at a",
temperature between 60oC to 80oC in the present case as caramalisation and maillard reaction responsible for browning occurs only if the,
temperature is between 100oC to 120oC. According to the patentee use of fructose in place normal sugar is claimed as invention.,
34. Moreover the so called essential step of purging in preparation of non-browned laevulose syrup by purging of inert gas at about 2.5 kg/sq cm,
through the laevulose powder solution is not essential as seen from description,
Example 1,
This example illustrates the preparation of Fructose syrup of the required viscosity without browning 750 gm of Fructose powder in 1000 ml of Water,
was heated with and without purging of inert gas. The time '0' was taken from the point of boiling of the solution. The colour of the solution was,
measured at 430 nm. As described, controlled heating of fructose in the presence of inert gas helps in the production of fructose syrup without change",
of the initial colour. Table 1 presents representative data of such an experiment.,
Example 2,
Five litres if fresh cow's milk was boiled and 200 ml of vinegar (10% solution of acetic acid was added. The milk was curdled and the whey was,
filtered off. The solid portion i.e. cottage cheese (known as paneer) was made into balls of about 10 to 12 gms by weight. The paneer balls were,
made into four portions and each portion was separately soaked into a liter of solutions obtained by dissolving 250 grams of sugar alcohols (polyois),
such as sorbitol, lactitol, xyltol, and manitol. The paneer balls, thus obtained, were introduced into the boiling solution. After 10 minutes of boiling 5 to7",
ml of 10% solution of a herbal extract of sapindus - trifollatus was added at intervals of 6 to 7 minutes during cooking.,
Another aqueous solution was prepared by dissolving 250 gms of fructose in water. This was heated progressively with temperature maintained,
between 60 and 70 degrees for about 10 minutes till the solution acquired low syrupy consistency. Four separate solutions of the above mentioned,
quantity and viscosity were prepared.,
The paneer balls were removed from each of the polyol solutions and put into the fructose solutions to acquire the desired sweetness.,
Example 3,
Paneer balls were made as above,, 250 gms of fructose was dissolved in 2 litres of water and brought to boiling. During heating, inert gas was bubbled",
into the liquid and under an inert gas blanket. As the solution reached its boiling point, the paneer balls were introduced into the solution with",
continuous heating. pH of the solution was monitored and was maintained between 2 to 6.5.,
In another lot 1250 gms of fructose was dissolved in 4 lts of water and heated to 60-70 degrees centigrade for a period of 10 minutes. This solution,
was added to the solution containing the paneer balls and heating continued for a total period for 20 minutes till the paneer balls acquired the desired,
sweetness.,
35. The applicant further contented that the respondents in their counter statement stated that,
as stated in the present patent the product that is protected under the Indian Patents Act, is Indian sweets with Low Glyemic Index wherein the",
undesired Maillard reaction and caramellisation are controlled to the desired level and organoleptic properties are maintained by using a novel and,
inventive low glycemic ingredient."" Example 2 is using sorbitol, lactitol, zyitol and manitol which are not low glycemic sugar as admitted by the",
applicant.,
It is submitted that in example 2 and 3 no purging with inert gas was done thus making the step of purging as non essential step. The so called making,
of non-browning fructose syrup is not inventive as in any case browning will not occur at lower temperature,
between 60-80 oC and making of sugar syrup in water by boiling is a common knowledge.,
The counsel for applicant pleads for the revocation of this patent In view of above grounds.,
Respondents argument,
36. The learned counsel for respondents submitted that the claimed invention is not product specific by process specific. It is for a novel process of,
preparing laevulose syrup of variable viscosity and maintaining its consistency without browning at elevated temperatures and preparing Low,
Glycemic sweet without getting it browned when the content is exposed to elevated temperature. Normal Sugar is substituted by inventive low,
Glycemic ingredient so that sweets become consumable by diabetic patients.,
Inventive step,
37. The respondent in the counter and as per the submissions made by Shri. A.A. Mohan contended that product patent relating to Low Glycemic No.,
200285 is inventive. For example, where the paneer balls are cooked in sugar syrup. Whereas, cooking of paneer balls in fructose syrup is done with",
continuous purging Nitrogen. In alternative method for making rasagulla method of cooking paneer balls separately is novel and as inventive step as,
first the protein mass (paneer for rasagulla and rasamalai) is cooked in water and after cooling adding the same in fructose syrup separately made. In,
the example of Basundi and Pedas and Burfis, fructose is added after sweet mass removed from fire which is different from method which are",
adopted conventionally wherein sugar added right in the beginning along with khoa and heated. If this method is practiced for the manufacture of Low,
Glycemic Peda or Burfi using fructose, it will immediately brown due to Maillard Reaction and Caramelization. The same also hold goods for Badam,",
Pista, Cashew Kadli, Mysore Pak and Halwas.",
By not adding Levulose/Fructose right during the initial stages of cooking and adding it separately after the cooking of the sweet mass has been done,
and it has been removed from fire, what we are doing here involves four things:",
 1 Firstly, we alter the Reaction Temperature during the introduction of Levulose to the sweetmeat.",
2 Secondly, we separate the Protein and Carbohydrate elements during the cooking process thereby eliminating the scope of Maillard Reaction and",
Caramelization to occur.,
3 Thirdly, we significantly reduce the Reactivity Period or Time during which Maillard reaction and Caramalization can occur.",
4 Fourthly and most importantly, by altering or lowering the temperature at which levulose is added to the sweet, the Water Activity of the sweetmeat",
is alreterd. Every product has water content. Water Activity is basically the vapour pressure of water in a substance compared to the vapour pressure,
of pure or distilled water at the same temperatures. As the temperature increases, the likelihood of Maillard reaction browning a product increases.",
Therefore by adding the levulose at lower temperatures, the water activity is lowered. By lowering Water activity, Maillard reaction is thus prevented.",
We, therefore are 1) Altering the Reaction Temperature, 2) Separating or balancing the Carbohydrate / Protein ratio during the cooking process, 3)",
Significantly reduce the Reactivity Period and 4) Reducing the Water Activity thus eliminating Maillard Reaction. Therefore, by our Inventive process",
of introducing fructose at a later stage, we are achieving the above mentioned four conditions of Altered Reactive Temperatures, Balancing of",
Protein/Carbohydrate Ratio, Reduced Reactivity Period and Reduced Water Activity which lead to the prevention of Maillard Reaction and",
Caramalization. This is definitely an invention.,
The respondent relied on the following case laws,
(i) In M/s. Bishwanath Prasad Radhey Shyam Vs. M/s. Hindustan Metal Industries, (1979) 2 SCC 511 where Justice Sarkaria, held that ""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 interrelation they produce a new process or improved result. It is not,
enough, said Lord Dave in Rickmann Vs. Thierry (1896) 14 Pat. CA. 105, 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 understand that in adopting the old",
contrivance to the new purpose, there must be difficulties to be overcome, requiring what is called invention, or there must be some Ingenuity in the",
mode of making the adoption.,
In this case, that",
New Article is the Low Glycemic Indian Sweets for Diabetics and Health Watchers,",
The Difficulties they have overcome are the difficulties of Maillard Reaction and Caramalization.,
And the Novelty or Ingenuity is their method of cooking the protein and the carbohydrate separately to overcome the problem of Maillard Reaction,
and Caramalisation,
Therefore, this embodiment of the Patentee's Invention fulfills all the requirement of being considered Novel and Inventive.",
38. Counsel for the respondent contended that the use of levulose in place of sugar is not a mere substitution. Levulose does not react in the same,
manner as Sugar because of its inherent problems of Maillard Reaction and Quicker Caramalization and therefore it cannot be called that it is a mere,
replacing of Levulose of Sugar.,
In this case, the use of Levulose in the Production of Low Glycemic Indian sweets, the entire process differs from the Traditional method of preparing",
regular sweets. The differences between the Patentee's methods and the Traditional Method of Producing regular sweets include:,
a. Use of Inert Gas,
b. Use of Steam and High Pressure,
c. Use of Vacuum or Low Pressure,
d. Balancing of Reaction Time, Reaction Temperature, Water Activity of the sweetmeat etc.",
e. Balancing of the Protein-Carbohydrate Ratio during the Reaction Temperature,
When so many Production Processes differ completely, it clearly proves that Levulose is NOT a mere substitution of Sugar and the Patentee's",
Process does involve definite Inventiveness.,
Levulose is 1.7 - 2 times sweeter than normal sugar. This means, then, that only half the quantity can be used or the sweetmeat will become too",
sweet. Then what we are trying to do us use lesser quantities but achieve the same textural and organoleptic properties as Regular Sweets made with,
Sugar. This itself is a big challenge and achieving it is itself worthy of patent.,
In pharmaceutical language, this is achieving ""Similar Therapeutic Effect with Lower Dosage."" This is definitely worthy of Patent.",
One final reason why it is not merely substituting Levulose for Sugar lies in the fact that the Petitioners could not produce non browned low glycemic,
sweets even when they infringed upon the patentee's invention. The patentees have proven and submitted at the Hon'ble High Court of Madras,
samples of their Low Glycemic Rasagulla which were totally browned. It is an indisputable evidence of their failure to produce Non-browned Low,
Glycemic Indian Sweets that is submitted to the Hon'ble High Court of Chennai. It was against this infringement by the Petitioners Adayar Ananda,
Bhawan against which the Patentees have won the interim injunction. If it was only a mere replacement and if the Patentee's invention held No.,
inventiveness, then why could they, i.e. Adayar Ananda Bhavan Not make Non browned Low Glycemic Sweets?",
Therefore, the very application of fructose in the manufacture of low glycemic Indian sweets has not been thought by anybody and hence is achieved",
by the Patentee for the First Time and that by itself is Patentable.,
In Ajay Industrial Corporation Vs. Shiro Kanao of Ibaraki city ALL INDIA REPORTER 1983 Delhi 496, -It was held that, ""A new and useful",
application of an old principle may be good subject matter. An improvement on something known, may also afford subject matter, so also a different",
combination of matters already known. A patentable combination is one in which the component elements are so combined as to produce a new result,
or arrive at an old result in a better or more expeditious or more economical manner. If the result produced by the combination is either a new article,
or a better or cheaper article than before, the combination may afford subject matter of a patent.",
In Lallubhai Chakubhai Jariwala Vs. Shamaldas Sankalchand ALL INDIA REPORTER AIR 1934 Bom 407 at 414,",
In our case, it has been proven that our invention of cooking the sweetmeat separately or adding fructose after the heating process turned that which",
was practically useless i.e. a sweetmeat unfit for consumption due to browning due to Maillard Reaction and Caramelization into that which is very,
useful and very important i.e. Low Glycemic Indian Sweets Suitable for Diabetics. In this case, therefore, the results are so great that they are subject",
of patent.,
Therefore, the Patentees have Proven Beyond Doubt the inventiveness of all the methods of preparation of Low Glycemic Sweets and the",
Inventiveness in all the Examples given in the Product Patent.,
As Justice Tomlin said in Parkes Vs. Cocker (1929) 46 RPC 241 at 248 ""The truth is that, when once it had been found that the problem had waited",
solution for many years, and that the device is in fact novel and superior to what had gone before, and has been widely used and used in preference to",
alternative devices, it is I think, practically impossible to say there is not present that scintilla of invention necessary to support the patent.",
Hence the Patentees have established the inventiveness in both the Process and Product Patents the need for Low Glycemic Indian Sweets suitable,
for Diabetics has been felt for so long and the Patentee was the First and Only person to supply that want and has also evidenced commercial,
success. In the context of the above, we kindly request the Jury to Dismiss the Baseless Petition for the revocation of the Patents.",
Counsel for the respondent submitted that No Prior Art is available before the Invention of the Patentees on preventing Maillard Reaction and,
Caramelization of Levulose and Manufacturing Low Glycemic Indian Sweets using Levulose.,
Not common or public knowledge,
39. In fact, the petition has not shown or attached any prior document to show that the impugned patent was already known to the public knowledge",
as on the date of the patent and the person skilled in the art was aware of the said granted patent showing the common general knowledge.,
In the ruling by the Court of Appeal in General Tire Vs. Firestone Tire Ltd (1972) RPC 457, at 497-498 is even more apt: ""the act requires the Court",
to make a finding of fact as to what was, at the priority date included in the state of the art and thus to find again as a fact whether, having regard to",
that state of the art, the alleged inventive step would be obvious to a person skilled in the art.",
Considering the above case law, it is to be noted clearly, that comparison with the prior art can be done only when the prior art documents have been",
cited or attached or enclosed for reference, but the petitioner has only made bald statements and has totally failed to attach or enclose or even cite any",
of the prior art disclosure documents which are very necessary for considering the ground of ""Obviousness"" or ""Inventive Step"" and in the absence of",
the same, the said ground cannot said to have been established to revoke the patent.",
Common General Knowledge"" and ""Criteria for the same"": It is important to have a clear understanding of the meaning of the common general",
knowledge. It is the background technical knowledge available to all in a particular trade while doing or carrying out a product development activity.,
The common general knowledge as described by JUSTICE Laddie in Raychem Corp's Patents [1998] RPC 31 at 40, ""The common general",
knowledge is the, technical background of the notional man in the art against which the prior art must be considered...It includes all that material in the",
field he is working in which he knows exists, which he would refer to as a matter of course if he cannot remember it and which he understands is",
generally regarded as sufficiently reliable to use as a foundation for further work or to help understand the pleaded prior art.,
The petitioner claims that Traditional Indian Sweets are Common Knowledge because they have been known for many years. Similarly Fructose is,
also Common General Knowledge because it has been known for many years.,
This is where the petitioner goes sadly wrong because the Patentees are not claiming patent over Traditional Indian Sweets or Fructose as per se. The,
Patentee's scope of the patent refers to Low Glycemic Indian Sweets using Levulose overcoming the problems of Maillard Reaction and,
Caramelizaiton.,
Nobody, skilled in the art, has been able to overcome the reactions of Maillard Reaction and Caramelization of Levulose Based Sweetmeat using the",
Common General Knowledge before the grant of the Patent and Produce Low Glycemic Indian Sweets for Diabetics.,
Until the Invention of the Patentee, there has been no way found to Eliminate Maillard Reaction and Caremelization of Levulose/Fructose when used",
to manufacture Low Glycemic Indian Sweets. Nor has the Petitioner submitted any Documents to prove Prior Art. Hence the Patentee is the First,
and the True Inventor of Low Glycemic Indian Sweets for Diabetics Using Levulose/Fructose.,
Obviousness,
40. In this case, there has been no Obviousness for NO person skilled in the art or NO non-inventive mind has been able to overcome the problems of",
Maillard Reaction and Caramelization of Levulose based Indian Sweet and Introduce Low Glycemic Indian Sweets for Diabetics. This itself shows,
that the patent Involves definite Inventiveness and is not mere replacing of Levulose instead of Sugar,
In High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patent Courts in 2007 ENGLAND WALE HIGH COURT 2636 (Pat) between Mr. Aloys Wobben and",
Vestas Celtic Wind Technology Ltd., (Case 9), where it was pointed out that the question of obviousness involves analysis of the following four steps",
as stated in the famous 1985 RPC 55 Wind Surfing International Inc. v. Tabur Marine Great Britain Limited.,
The four steps are:,
1 . Identify the notional -person skilled in the art-and the relevant common general knowledge of that person Here, the -person skilled in the art-is a",
regular sweet maker and the common general knowledge of that person has only to do with technicalities while using regular sugar. Infact, even",
scientists have not been able to overcome the problems of Maillard Reaction and Caramelization before the invention of the Patentee.,
2. Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question or, if it cannot be done, construe it.",
In this case, the Inventive Step is the 'Manufacture of Low Glycemic Indian Sweets using Levulose by overcoming its innate tendencies to Brown due",
to Maillard Reaction and Caramelization'.,
3 . Identify if any of the differences existing between the matters cited as forming state of the art and the inventive concept of the claim or the claim,
as construed.,
The state of art knowledge before the Invention had nothing to do with the manufacture of Low Glycemic Indian Sweets. The knowledge stopped,
with using conventional sugar/jaggery which are HIGH GLYCEMIC in nature.,
4. Ask whether, when viewed without any knowledge of the alleged invention as claimed: do those differences constitute steps which would have",
been obvious to the person skilled in the art or do they require any degree of invention?,
It was impossible to avoid Maillard Reaction and Caramelization of Fructose based sweet when heating and required the Invention of the Patentee.,
Therefore, it has been established before the Jury that it was NOT Obvious for a person skilled in the art to be able to overcome the reactions of",
Maillard Reaction and Caramelization and produce Low Glycemic Indian Sweets suitable for Diabetics. This is the reason why NOBODY has come,
out with Low Glycemic Indian Sweets suitable for Diabetics despite three facts:,
1 Traditional Indian Sweets have always been known,
2 Existence of fructose has been known for many years,
3 Diabetic Population is a Huge One and Diabetic Market has great potential,
Despite the above facts, NOBODY had come out with Low Glycemic Indian Sweets suitable for diabetics for it was NOT OBVIOUS before the",
Invention of the Patentee.,
ECONOMICALLY SIGNIFICANT, INDUSTRIALLY APPLICABLE & COMMERC SUCCESS:",
41. In Indian Patent law, ""inventive step"" is defined under section 2(1) (j) & 2(1 ) (ja) of the Act respectively wherein;",
Sec. 2(1)(ja) ""inventive step"" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having",
ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;,
The respondents point out and submit that the inventive step of using fructose in the preparation of traditional Indian sweets precluding Maillard,
reaction at the elevated temperatures is an economically significant technical invention.,
The respondents would like to submit here that they are the first and true inventors of this process and also made this process commercially successful,
and the Industrial application viable.,
In this respect reference may kindly be made to the following case laws wherein it was shown that ""commercial success and long felt want or need""",
can support a case of inventiveness;,
In Wildey & Whites Vs. Freeman & Letrik [1931] 48 RPC 405 at 414, it was held that, ""commercial success which is shown to be due to the precise",
improvement, the subject of the specification ought to have considerable weight in regard to such a matter...."". (Case 10)",
Only because this Invention is Economically Significant and Industrially Applicable has the Patentee's organization been able to build the Brand,
DIABETICS DEZIRE and obtain ISO 22000 / HACCP Certification from no less an Organisation than TUV SUD (Germany) known for its highest",
standards in Quality. The patentee could not have obtained the ISO 22000 / HACCP Certification from TUV SUD (Germany) if it Invention is not,
Industrially Applicable.,
Only because the Patentee's Invention is Commercially Economic and Successful do we have Five Exclusive Showrooms across Chennai, Bangalore",
& Hyderabad. Moreover, our Products are available in over 300 Leading Super Markets and Pharmacies throughout Tamil Nadu. Our Low Glycemic",
Sweets for Diabetics are Purchased by All Leading 5 Star Hotels including Le Royal Meridian, GRT Grand, Radisson, Taj Coromandel. Our Products",
are also available in many Leading Hospitals.,
Hence, the respondents would like to conclude their presentation on this issue of",
Commercial Success and Industrial Applicability by quoting the a case law:,
In Howaldt Vs.Condrup [1937] 54 RPC 121 at 132 it was held that, ""the fact that there has been a felt want for some period and the patentee was the",
first person to supply that want, and also as evidenced by the commercial success, are facts which are extremely relevant and sufficient to tip the",
scale in favor of the validity of the patent. (Case 11),
LACK OF ANY DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE BY THE PETITIONER,
42. The respondents would like to state that the petitioner have never produced any documentary proof for substantiating his grounds of revocation,",
but only been repeatedly making bald statements, but failed to produce any convincing evidence or other documentary proofs.",
Similarly the petitioner has only relied on the arguments given in the pleadings, taking all the available grounds of revocation, but has not adduced any",
further documents or evidences to substantiate those grounds of revocation.,
In this regard, the respondents would like to refer to the following case laws wherein it was shown that neither dumb anticipations or the non",
production of any convincing evidences will only prove fatal to that party who fail to do so.,
In this respect the reference may kindly made to the judgment of Lord Justice Buckley in Dunlop Holding's Ltd., Appln. [1979] RPC 523 at 542 to",
543, where it was held that, ""failure to produce convincing evidence at any stage at which the evidential burden rests on the party who falls to do so,",
may prove fatal to that party's case."" (Case 12)",
Not only this, the respondents would also like to point out and submit that the petitioners did not file either the pre-grant or the post -grant opposition in",
respect of this impugned patent.,
Further there is no explanation for the delay of more than 3 years in filing this revocation petition against this impugned patent, when the suit was filed",
by the respondents against the petitioner in June 2006. This itself is makes it abundantly clear that the very basis of this request for revocation is based,
on malicious interest and that the Petitioners are requesting for this revocation only because the Interim Injunction has been given against them by the,
Honourable High Court of Madras.,
In this respect another reference may kindly made to the judgment of Lowndes' patent [1928] 45 RPC 48 at 57, in which JUSTICE Tomlin, observed,",
Where an application is being made for the revocation of a patent which has been granted, there is no doubt that the applicant is under the duty or",
burden of making out his case in the clearest way. (Case 13),
In this case, the petitioner has made no case or has submitted no proof or documented evidence supporting his request for revocation of the patents",
and hence the respondents request the Hon'ble Jury to dismiss their request without further entertainment.,
Therefore it is very clear that the petitioners having not produced any documents in support of their contentions and arguments would make their,
arguments untenable or as if not argued, like building castles in the air, which is nothing but mere imaginations and perceptions without any clear proof.",
Further in the Howaldt Vs.Condrup [1937] 54 RPC 121 at 132 it was held that, ""the fact that there has been a felt want for some period and the",
patentee was the first person to supply that want, and also as evidenced by the commercial success, are facts which are extremely relevant and",
sufficient to tip the scale in favour of the validity of the patent."" (Case 14)",
In regards to our Patents, the patentees would like to re-emphasize that the need for Low Glycemic Indian Sweets suitable for Diabetics has been felt",
for so long and the Patentee was the FIRST and ONLY person to supply that want and has also evidenced commercial success. In the context of the,
above, we kindly request the Jury to Dismiss the Baseless Petition of the revocation of the Patents 193899 & 200285",
The Petitioners have Proven that there is 1) Definite INVENTIVENESS in the Patents,
2) There is NO PRIOR ART or COMMON GENERAL KNOWLEDGE available regardi the invention that this Patent deals with before the date of,
the patent, 3) The Invention has NOT been OBVIOUS to anybody skilled in the art before the date of the patent, 4). The invention of the Patent has",
been COMMERCIALLY SUCCESSFUL AN INDUSTRIALLY APPLICABLE, 5) Absence of any DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE by Petitioner.",
Hence the Petitioner requests the Hon'ble Board to summarily reject the revocation of the patents 193899 & 200285.,
Decision and reasons,
4 3 . This invention provides for process of preparation of fructose (fruit sugar) chashini (Sugar syrup) and using it for preparation of Indian sweets.,
Inventive step lies in selection of sweetner instead of traditional cane sugar fruit sugar (fructose /levulose) is used. This change according to the,
inventor provides sweets which can be consumed by the diabetic patients as glycemic index of fructose/levulose is less than cane sugar. The inventor,
alleges to have solved the problem of browning of the sugar syrup prepared from fructose/levulose.,
44. Sugar syrup commonly known as Chasni is an essential ingredient for making many sweet dishes in India. Traditionally in Indian sweet preparation,
syrup of one-or two-or thread consistency (or 1 tar-2 tar-or 3 tar-chasni) ) are referred to different strength which are used in sweets. The grandma,
thread technique is very effective to get the desired strength of the syrup for a particular dessert.,
Traditional method of Preparation of Chasni,
Preparation time: 20 minute,
Ingredients: 2 cups sugar and 2 cup water,
Preparation of Chasni,
1 Mix the sugar and water in a vessel. Boil it on a medium heat.,
2 Keep stirring with a spoon,
3 Testing the consistency,
Keep stirring and testing the chasni for its consistency. To do this take out the spoon and put a drop in a plate. When the drop slightly cools down,",
touch it with your forefinger. Now touch your thumb and forefinger together and pull apart gently.,
Consistency of the Chasni is checked by pulling forefinger and thumb apart gently,
1 If a single thread is formed and breaks immediately, then it is half-thread consistency chasni.",
2 If a single thread is formed and does not break, then it is one-thread consistency chasni.",
 3 If two threads are formed and do not break, then it is two-thread consistency chasni. A drop of this syrup when dropped into cold water forms a",
soft ball.,
4 If three threads are formed and do not break, then it is three-thread consistency chasni. A drop of this syrup when dropped into cold water forms a",
soft ball.,
It may also be noted that for increasing the threads of the chasni it is necessary to continue the boiling of the syrup till the desired consistency is,
reached.,
From the object of the invention we see that,
The object of the invention is to provide processes for the preparation of fructose syrups (Chasni) of variable viscosity and high consistency, without",
browning, rendering it stable without decomposing when exposed to elevated temperatures for prolonged period, at the same time maintaining the",
organoleptic and visual characteristics of sucrose based syrups making them suitable for the preparation of sweetmeats of low Glycemic Index.,
In traditional terms making chasni of fructose at stated above.,
45. On the basis of submissions made by applicant and respondent one thing is clear that that the purpose of the invention is to avoid,
caramalisation/Millard reaction responsible for so called browning of the chasni of fructose (sweets). It is uncontested that browning will take place if,
the fructose (sweets) are heated at a temperature above 110oC. If we see the patented process for making the low glycemic sweets as disclosed in,
the specification we find that the maximum temperature disclosed in the examples is between 60 oC to 80 oC. This clearly establishes that browning,
chasni of fructose will not occurs (in the sweets) at this temperature. This is also evident from information given about the caramelisation and maillard,
reactions in the Encyclopedia for Food and Culture.,
caramelisation and maillard reactions requires temperatures that cannot be reached when water is present (boiling point of waters limits the cooking,
temperature to 212o F),
This makes the step of purging with inert gas during making of chasni of fructose as non essential. Further disclosure of an alternative method and,
optional purging in Example 1 and 3 also goes against the contention of the respondents that purging with inert gas is the inventive step in making,
fructose syrup.,
46 . If we examine the differences in the two methods i.e. inventive method and traditional method it is only the use of fruit sugar in place of,
conventional cane sugar. This is also admitted by the respondent. Now we shall examine the whether this is merely a selection from obvious,
alternative. This patent relates to low glycemic sweets where fructose/levulose is used as sweetener. The prior art or common knowledge here is use,
of cane sugar. Prior art discloses possibility of solving this problem by using fruit sugar which is known to have low glycemic index among other,
substitutes of sweeteners. The problem here is to find low glycemic sweeteners for using as suitable substitutes to sugar which is high glycemic.,
Selection of sweetener is based on its glycemic index. Available choice is sugar or fruit sugar. The person skilled in the art in this case had to make a,
choice between two well known possibilities. Either of the choice is based on the balancing of the disadvantages specific to the particular choice of,
sugar being selected such as the cost involved and technical adaptation so required. This is obvious in view of the fact that the type of sugar is,
required to chosen from what is well-known. In other words selection is being made from obvious alternatives.,
47. Now let us examine the purpose of the selection so made. Purpose here is to make low glycemic sweets and the basic purpose is sweetening of,
the sweets. And in such case test of inventive step is,
Whether the skilled person could obviously use a material generally available on the market and suitable for the purpose, and was also highly likely to",
use it for reasons irrespective of its characteristics?,
If answer is in affirmative then such use should not be considered as inventive on account of those characteristics alone.,
48. We therefore find it reasonable to accept that if making such selection was itself already obvious for other reasons, the natural choice of the",
particular sweetener available in the market was devoid of mental or practical effort, or of ""purposive selection"", in the absence of anything to the",
contrary.,
49. We can find the answer to this issue by finding whether addressing this kind of problem forms part of the routine work of a person skilled in the,
art. Since answer to this is in affirmative in the present case we find that neither the posing of such a problem nor a solution which merely involves,
routine adaptation or the use of known alternatives goes beyond what may be normally expected from an average person skilled in the art. In the,
context of the normal sweet making activities, motives for finding alternative may include the need for alternative sweetener as such. It may be",
accepted that the skilled person would adopt a conservative attitude when choosing the parameters and composition of a material (in this case,
sweetener) where the effect of any changes is difficult to predict. But, in an attempt to find the most appropriate alternatives in the given",
circumstances, the person skilled in the art must be expected to consider the use of well-known alternative materials which have proven to be suitable",
in a similar use. Fructose uncontested was, at the priority date of the opposed patent, among the most commonly known sweeteners. Hand book of",
Sugar (page1-9) confirms this based on sugar analysis. The choice of a fructose as sweetener in present claim 1 thus formed part of the normal,
activities of a person skilled in the art having to select a suitable one among a limited number of well-known alternative groups of sugar. This choice,
did not go against an established prejudice and could be made with a reasonable expectation of achieving known advantages (eg. low glycemic Index,
and lower costs) in the sweets. Following the conservative attitude mentioned above, the person skilled in the art would start routine trials with",
fructose and other sweeteners. Proceeding in this manner, the person skilled in the art would have arrived using fructose as claimed in claim 1 by",
using, in an obvious manner, a sweetener generally available on the market and suitable for the purpose.",
50. The respondent has cited cases referred above relating to, obviousness, inventive step, commercial success etc which we find are not so relevant",
in this case partly because of the difference in issues involved and partly because of the peculiar facts of this case. In view of above analysis and,
findings, we are inclined to agree that the subject-matter of the invention of the opposed patent does not involve an inventive step. The revocation",
petition therefore succeeds on this ground and hence grant of the patent number 193899 is set aside.,
