Careers360 - Think higher education! For Post Graduates, Engineers: 257 posts @ DIPP

For Post Graduates, Engineers: 257 posts @ DIPP
Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) is responsible for formulation and implementation of promotional and developmental measures for growth of the industrial sector, keeping in view the national priorities and socio-economic objectives.
by Team Carees360
|
|
| Post a comment | Subscribe to newsletter

Comment(s): 5

DIPP is recruiting examiners in Patent and Design.

Company: Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP), Office of The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks

Post: Patent and Design Examiners in various disciplines

Total no. of posts: 257

Age: 35 years as on closing date.

Reserved posts: UR-120, SC-39, ST-19, OBC-79

Pay scale: 15600-39100 grade pay Rs.5400/- (Group "A" Gazetted)

Eligibility: Masters Degree in Physics/ Chemistry/ Bio-Chemistry/ Microbiology/ Molecular Biology/ Bio-Technology/ Bio-Physics, OR Bachelor Degree in Engineering/ Technology of a recognised University or equivalent.

Selection process: Based on performance in an examination on January 2, 2011 at 17 centre all over India.

How to apply: Click here to apply online (October 19, 2010). Take a printout of the submitted application and the application form, duly completed with requisite enclosures & fixing requisite postage stamp should be sent to:
The Sr. Controller of Examinations
Examination Unit, Human Resource Development Group
CSIR Complex, (Opposite Institute of Hotel Management)
Library Avenue, Pusa, New Delhi 110012 only by registered post/speed post.

Note: Mode of payment of application fee is Bank challan from Indian Bank throughout the country & Oriental bank of Commerce (Srinagar) only.

Application deadline: October 25, 2010 (5 pm)

Click here for details

Address:
Boudhik Sampada Bhavan, S.M.Road
Antop Hill, Mumbai- 400 037

Website: www.dipp.nic.in
Published on: October 03, 2010
- |
- |
- | Post a comment | Subscribe to newsletter
5 Comments

lfctomwb | Apr 21, 2012

5RrXZc , []url=http://ufdqysgxvzfz.com/]ufdqysgxvzfz[]/url], []link=http://ddwdqqelurna.com/]ddwdqqelurna[]/link], http://oinijulhhpve.com/

Fery | Apr 18, 2012

The article is well copomsed and brings out facts before the readers.However, I am surprised by the speculative discussion (which is of no use when an IAS of GOI dictates). The essence of the process of examination has been misinterpreted (an usual practice by most of the administrators of the Patent Office due to lack of their technological expertise) when the article speculate:A. 'such a skill-set is available amongst the CSIR scientists'B. 'This would mean that the patent office examiners would still have to analyse the prior art searches and conclude on the patentability of the invention.'I point out the following facts which has been overlooked by the author in this article-1. Analysis of prior art is possible when the correct and the most appropriate prior art are found through an exhaustive search. It's not an easy job unless one has adequate research skills, industrial skills and knowledge of updates technological findings. Secondly during this prior art search, one need to keep in mind the definitions (and their practical implications) of 'invention', 'inventive step', 'obviousness' and 'patentability'. With due regards I state these officers (they are not hard-core scientist literally although their positions are documented as 'scientists') in CSIR may have knowledge and a separate division of IPR; but how they obtain knowledge and practices of the Patent Office where thousands decisions are given by way of forming tribunals? Therefore, the expertise in the Patent Office is quite different from that of any wing of IPR in any Govt/non-Govt organization. It is evident that IPO would have much scopes to form better skill sets (which is not available right at this moment due to the poor composition of the recent task force and many skilled officers with very high background have left the organization in the recent past). It is shameful that the dictators in the Patent Office haven't realised this fact and they have just 'outsourced' a very prominent issue to someone else without thinking twice. 2. Prior art don't indicate only patent literature, it includes non-patent literature too. Therefore, anticipation of a patent application is not an easy task to do. Given the set of prior art (within the meaning of the same as per the patent act and rules and the decisions of the court) it is quite hard task for an examiner to conclude with 'patenttability' only. The officers of CSIR might have kept something else in mind while picking out those prior art and these prior art may not be correct from an examiner's view point as he will consider critical decisions and other databases while making a prior art search. 3. The initiate of outsourcing the prior art search by a section of bad administrators in DIPP and the patent office is wrong and this test should not be conducted; the admin people of IPO should recruit more highly qualified (which is lacking now), skilled researchers who has both industrial and research exposures and a sound knowledge on IPR.