Novelty :
A novel invention is one, which has not been disclosed, in the prior art where prior art means everything that has been published, presented or otherwise disclosed to the public on the date of patent (The prior art includes documents in foreign languages disclosed in any format in any country of the world.) For an invention to be judged as novel, the disclosed information should not be available in the ‘prior art’. This means that there should not be any prior disclosure of any information contained in the application for patent (anywhere in the public domain, either written or in any other form, or in any language) before the date on which the application is first filed i.e. the ‘priority date’.
Therefore, an invention shall be considered to be new, if it does not form part of the prior art. Although the term prior art has not been defined under the Indian Patents Act, it shall be determined by the provisions of Section 13 read with the provisions of Sections 29 to 34.
(a) An invention shall not be considered to be novel if it has been anticipated by publication before the date of the filing of the application in any of the specification filed in pursuance of application for patent in India on or after the 1st day of January 1912.
(b) An invention shall not be considered to be novel if it has been anticipated by publication made before the date of filing of the application in any of the documents in any country.
(c) An invention shall not be considered to be novel if it has been claimed in any claim of any other complete specification filed in India which is filed before the application but published after said application.
(d) An invention shall not be considered to be novel if it has been anticipated having regard to the knowledge, oral or otherwise, available within any local or indigenous community in India or elsewhere.
In Ganendro Nath Banerji v. Dhanpal Das Gupta, AIR1945 Oudh 6, it was held that no general rule can be laid down as to what does or does not constitute an invention. The general criterion seems to be whether that which is claimed lies within the limits of development of some existing trade, in the sense that it is such a development as an ordinary person skilled in that trade could, if he wishes so to do, naturally, make without any inventive step. But novelty need only be established in the process of manufacturing, not in the article produced. Novel combination of two known ideas may be sufficient to establish novelty of subject matter in this respect.
In Ram Narain Kher v. M/s Ambassador Industries, AIR 1976 Del 87, the Delhi High Court has held that at the time the patent is granted to a party it is essential that the party claiming patent should specify what particular features of his device distinguish it from those which had gone before and show the nature of the improvement which is said to constitute the invention. A person claiming a patent has not only to allege the improvement in art in the form but also that the improvement effected a new and very useful addition to the existing state of knowledge. The novelty or the invention has to be succinctly stated in the claim.