content: But it does! Read the article and they seem to be clarifying the phrase 'invention' rather than adding a single clause. In particular an invention is a thing and not a method or process. So your new invention might be patentable, but the process it enacts would not. Imagine you use your method and create a multiplier using Booth's algorithm. Well you could patent the invention - the multiplier - but not the underlying algorithm. So you might have a claim if somebody else created another multiplier (regardless of how they implemented the math), but if somebody else created another product also using Booth's multiplication algorithm - you would not have a claim! India in general seems to be a surprising source of sanity against increasingly ridiculous IP laws.