Section 7 of the Patents Act speaks of the form in which an application for a patent must be made. It says that:
1. Every application must be for only one invention.
2. If the application is made by an assignee, it must contain proof that the assignee is entitled to make it.
3. Every application must contain the name of the true and first inventor. If that person is not the applicant, the applicant should declare that the person named as the true and first inventor is in fact the true and first inventor.
4. Every application must state that the applicant possesses the invention.
5. Every application must be accompanied by provisional or complete specifications of the invention.
Under Section 8, if the applicant is pursuing an application for a patent of the same invention in a foreign country either alone or jointly, or some person deriving a title from him is doing so, the applicant should:
1. inform the Controller
2. help the Controller remain informed of the progress of that application.
Under Section 9, complete specifications of the invention should be filed within 12 months after the provisional specifications have been filed. Where two or more applications in the name of the same applicant are accompanied by provisional specifications in respect of inventions which are cognate or of which one is a modification of another and the Controller is of the opinion that the whole of such inventions are such as to constitute a single invention and may properly be included in one patent, he may allow one complete specification to be filed in respect of all such provisional specifications.
An application can be postdated to the date of filing the complete specification. This can be done by the Controller on a request by the applicant being made for the purpose.

Sections 3 and 4 of the Patents Act speak of what can and cannot be patented. The following cannot be patented according to these Sections:

1. a) frivolous inventions

b) inventions which claim anything contrary to natural laws

2. inventions whose primary or intended use / commercial exploitation could be:

a. against public order or morality

b. against plant / animal / human life and health

c. prejudicial to the environment

3. a) the discovery of a scientific principle

b) the discovery of a living thing or non-living substance occurring in nature

4. a) the discovery of a new form of a known substance which does not result in any enhancement of the known efficacy of the substance

b) a new property or new use of a known substance

c) the mere use of a known process or machine or apparatus unless (i) a new product is created or (ii) at least one new reactant is employed

5. a) a substance which is obtained be a mere admixture resulting only in the aggregation of properties of the components

b) a process to produce such a substance

6. the arrangement or re-arrangement or duplication of known devices functioning independently of each other in a known way

7. a method of agriculture or horticulture

8. a) any process for the medical, surgical, curative, prophylactic, diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment of humans

b) any process for the medical, surgical, curative, prophylactic, diagnostic, therapeutic or other treatment of animals to render them free from disease or increase the economic value of them or their products

9. a) plants or animals in whole or in part including seeds, varieties and species but not including microorganisms

b) essentially biological processes for production or propagation thereof

10. literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, aesthetic creations, films, TV productions

11. a) any scheme, rule or method of performing a mental act

b) a method of playing a game

12. a presentation of information

13. the topography of an integrated circuit

14. a) an invention which is in effect traditional knowledge

b) an aggregation or duplication of known properties of traditionally known component(s)

15. a mathematical or business methods or computer programmes per se or algorithms

16. any invention relating to atomic energy which is prejudicial to the defence of India

One of the requirements for a patent to be granted is that whether it be a product or a process, it be novel. The invention should not have been anticipated.

It was held in Windsurfing v. Tabur, 1985 that ‘the notion behind anticipation is that it would be wrong to prevent a man from doing what he has lawfully done before the grant of the patent’.

In Glaverbd v. British Coal Corporation, 1994, it was held that novelty and anticipation are judged by seeing whether a patentee’s claims are capable of being equated with the information contained in a document published before the patentee makes his claims.

Section 2 (l) of the Patents Act defines a new invention as any invention or technology which has not been anticipated by publication in any document, or used in either within India or outside it, before the date of the filing of the patent application with complete specifications. That is to say, the subject matter or the invention should not belong to the public domain and it should not form part of the state of the art.