The Dichotomy Of S. 3(d) && S. 3(e), AND, My Dilemma Awaiting For The Train To Rescue!

 

Dear Diary,

It’s now decade and a half, and my dilemmas w.r.t. the dichotomy of Section (d) and (e) has still not been resolved! As in my immediate previous blog, I explained the universal dilemmas w.r.t. Section 3(k) involved when it comes to Algorithms and Software Programs, and I shared some of  my previous blogs too published in 2012 and 2014; similarly, I had this dilemma w.r.t. the word composition as well, and that further included the MARKUSH analysis, its structures, compounds, that’s been claimed novel, which further defines a common core principle, yet been diversified with several different substitutes over it! Not only that, when it comes to Chemical or Pharmaceuticals related compositions, I’m a bit skeptical, of the definitions included under S. 3(e) and 3(d), especially, for the word compositions of known compounds! As explained in my previous blogs too, to overcome them, three words are required: 

1. Efficacy
2. Synergistic  
3. Enhancement   
   

But again, mere admixture or the enhancement of the known components, would’ve been gone against the will of novelty as well. Yet, Chemicals, and including Pharmaceuticals compositions’ too wouldn’t have been different too. How? As, if mere a change in the substitute over the same core principle can bring the novelty concept, then, why not this be applicable for others as well which are compositions of different known ingredients, with the exact precise metrics and quantity involved, and further only if in case it has got the manufacturing approval, which fulfils the criteria of the industrial applicability, especially, where and when the concept of utility novelty with a single inventive step is absent!?

This is the dilemma, wherein, I contended to include something, with the exact metrics of components in compositions as novel, especially when it has been industrially manufactured!  But again, there was this SHADOW of my own dilemma that said, this may dilute the concept of novelty altogether because for the reasons as, anyone can increase or decrease the proportions and metrics of other novelties, to create a new novelty, which again, is just mere adjustments of the known novelty, which again is a disputed novelty or discovery, under the principle of Section 3(d) or (e), which cannot be considered as novel!  But then again, what Markush or Pharmaceuticals are also doing? Mere adjustments, or, absolutely new?

This is the dilemma that’s been awaiting for the Train to rescue it!😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi