專利教學網站
【2006/3/1】
Principles of patent law
雖然沒有提供什麼內容，但卻有一些相關case的名稱。
【2006/1/25】
FUNDAMENTALS OF SOFTWARE PATENT PRACTICING
Lecture
1. Patent Low
2. Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions
3. Novelty
4. Statutory Subject Matter
5. Non-Obviousness
6. Patent Claims
7. Claim Analysis
3/01/2006
【103】Unexpected Results 不可預期的效果
【103】Unexpected Results 不可預期的效果
長久以來，對於“不可預期”這個字，一直很不明白，今天發現了一篇簡報，讀完它並且瀏覽（真的只是瀏覽）了M.P.E.P. Section 716.02, Allegations Of Unexpected Results，在看簡報時感覺好像懂了一點點。但看MPEP的時候，就覺得是完全看不懂，這一章它到底要說什麼？
Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results（by Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences）：
Unexpected Results
Results which would be viewed as surprisingly better or superior by a person of ordinary skill in the art
That which is surprising to one having ordinary skill in the art is not predictable nor obvious
Merely superior or better is not enough – must be surprisingly or unexpectedly better
Proof of synergy does not necessarily prove unexpected results
Synergy– a property which may be unexpected or not based on the particular facts
SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT UNEXPECTED RESULTS JURISPRUDENCE（By Harris A. Pitlick）
[W]hen an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results, as Soni did here, and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[45]
申請人只要聲明其結果是unexpected，那麼在沒有相反證據的情況下，即足以證明其發明具不可預期的效果（Unexpected Results）。
也許要證明“不可預期”的效果僅需要依Rule 132 提Declarations即可吧，至於為什麼要求那麼低程度的舉證責任，也許就是上篇文章作者所說的：
To put it in other words, the majority's standard seems to work a balancing test--the greater the magnitude of the difference in results, the smaller is the burden to show that the difference is unexpected.
PS：上篇文章很值得讀讀，只是要懂好難，英文又爛不加強不行。
長久以來，對於“不可預期”這個字，一直很不明白，今天發現了一篇簡報，讀完它並且瀏覽（真的只是瀏覽）了M.P.E.P. Section 716.02, Allegations Of Unexpected Results，在看簡報時感覺好像懂了一點點。但看MPEP的時候，就覺得是完全看不懂，這一章它到底要說什麼？
Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results（by Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences）：
Unexpected Results
Results which would be viewed as surprisingly better or superior by a person of ordinary skill in the art
That which is surprising to one having ordinary skill in the art is not predictable nor obvious
Merely superior or better is not enough – must be surprisingly or unexpectedly better
Proof of synergy does not necessarily prove unexpected results
Synergy– a property which may be unexpected or not based on the particular facts
SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT UNEXPECTED RESULTS JURISPRUDENCE（By Harris A. Pitlick）
[W]hen an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results, as Soni did here, and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[45]
申請人只要聲明其結果是unexpected，那麼在沒有相反證據的情況下，即足以證明其發明具不可預期的效果（Unexpected Results）。
也許要證明“不可預期”的效果僅需要依Rule 132 提Declarations即可吧，至於為什麼要求那麼低程度的舉證責任，也許就是上篇文章作者所說的：
To put it in other words, the majority's standard seems to work a balancing test--the greater the magnitude of the difference in results, the smaller is the burden to show that the difference is unexpected.
PS：上篇文章很值得讀讀，只是要懂好難，英文又爛不加強不行。
【103】未揭示的優點及固有特性
【103】未揭示的優點及固有特性
為要克服103的進步性理由，即使其有利的功效沒有揭示於說明書中，只要該有利功效是固有的特性，那麼在答辯中提出即可。
716.02(f) Advantages Disclosed or Inherent
We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant's evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution.
為要克服103的進步性理由，即使其有利的功效沒有揭示於說明書中，只要該有利功效是固有的特性，那麼在答辯中提出即可。
716.02(f) Advantages Disclosed or Inherent
We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant's evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution.
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)