The date of a "patented"，是指已公告且能夠執行專利權的日子。
The date of a "patented" event under 102(a) and 102(b)
is the fate that the patent rights become enforceable,
i.e., the date the sovereign formally bestows patent rights to the applicant,
if the patent document is accessible to the public when granted.
12/24/2010
12/15/2010
小小的改善，亦具有進步性。
在一個高度發展的技術領域，一個小小的改善，亦具有進步性。
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9609.html
Crowded Art: This refers to an area of technology in which there have been a large number of prior inventions. In a crowded art, it takes less of an advancement to obtain a valid patent. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that there can be no further patenting in that art.
http://www.dallasbar.com/members/headnotes_showarticle.asp?article_id=1447&issue_id=131
For example, in Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., the District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied summary judgment and found that “KSR does not automatically call for a ruling of invalidity unless the patent challenged is a major development in the art” because even “narrow improvements in a crowded art” continue to be patentable.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9609.html
Crowded Art: This refers to an area of technology in which there have been a large number of prior inventions. In a crowded art, it takes less of an advancement to obtain a valid patent. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that there can be no further patenting in that art.
http://www.dallasbar.com/members/headnotes_showarticle.asp?article_id=1447&issue_id=131
For example, in Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., the District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied summary judgment and found that “KSR does not automatically call for a ruling of invalidity unless the patent challenged is a major development in the art” because even “narrow improvements in a crowded art” continue to be patentable.
9/16/2010
Markush claim及“擇一用語”
Markush claim及“擇一用語”
當使用 Markush claim時，若審查員找到前案揭示A， 即可不必審B~G而直接核駁整個 Markush claim。Markush claim其實是一種“個人創造“的上位用語，當下位被揭露後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“不具新穎性”。當下位被認為顯而易知後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“顯而易知”。
個人認為，當使用 Markush claim時，就可推定申請人已認為 「A B C D E F and G」之間，對本領域具有通常知識者，是可互相替代的。因此，於審查中，審查員甚至可以推定B~G 為顯而易知並加以核駁。
當然，還是可以進行答辯，只是要克服前述的“推定”，申請人需要花比較多的舉證責任，證明B~G的進步性。答辯方式可以比照下位被揭露的情況，進行答辯。
因此，建議若一開始就認為下位概念「A」、「B C and D」及「E F and G」」之間是不可互相替代的，互相具有進步性，希望審查員個別進行檢索及審查，就應該要分三個claim寫。當然這會有「單一性」的問題。
此外，不單純是Markush claim，使用“or”用語的情況也適用。
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/205/205.F2d.185.5935.html
If on examination of a generic Markush type claim, it be found that the applicant has included one or more members known to be old in the art for the same purpose as in the applicant's invention, the group in its entirety must fail of recognition in exactly the same manner as would have been the case had the group of elements of the claim been identified by a single term. In such contingency, a formula of lesser scope may be invoked, provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group. In re Hass et al., supra.3
答辯的重點。
provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group.
由於申請人一開始就使用Markush claim代表A B C and D具有a first common quality。因此最好的答辯理由是「B C and D」的具有a second common quality different from the first common quality。
個人認為就是因為申請人一開始使用Markush claim，才讓審查員被教導成A B C and D間具有common quality，能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，如此才會變得較難答辯。審查員少了找出common quality的舉證責任。所以，假如一開始申請人初步判斷A B C and D間可能會被認為具有common quality能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，就要刻意的閃躲，即使自己已認為有common quality，也要刻意地用沒有common quality的語氣來撰寫，清楚的表明申請人從不認為A B C and D間具有common quality，並分三個claim寫或分三個案子申請，這樣子後續的答辯會較輕鬆。
當然，現實與理想，相差很遠，個人想說的僅是理論，
其他，還可以試著用如下極端的方式答辯，亦即雖然申請人使用Markush claim，但A B C and D間卻沒有common quality，亦可以直接承認誤用（當然誤用兩字不必要寫於理由書中），直接向審查員說明A B C and D間卻沒有common quality。但「B C and D」的具有a common quality而且是patentable的。
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0800_803_02.htm
MPEP
This subsection deals with Markush-type generic claims which recite a plurality of alternatively usable substances or members. In most cases, a recitation by enumeration is used because there is no appropriate or true generic language. A Markush-type claim may include independent and distinct inventions. This is true where two or more of the members are so unrelated and diverse that a prior art reference anticipating the claim with respect to one of the members would not render the claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to the other member(s). In applications containing a Markush-type claim that encompasses at least two independent or distinct inventions, the examiner may require a provisional election of a single species prior to examination on the merits. An examiner should set forth a requirement for election of a single disclosed species in a Markush-type claim using form paragraph 8.01 when claims limited to species are present or using form paragraph 8.02 when no species claims are present. See MPEP § 808.01(a) and § 809.02(a). Following election, the Markush-type claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability. If the Markush-type claim is not allowable **, the provisional election will be given effect and examination will be limited to the Markush-type claim and claims to the elected species, with claims drawn to species patentably distinct from the elected species held withdrawn from further consideration.
(Landis Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting Textbook, Page 6-9). Where claiming alternative compounds, they must not be "patentably distinct" under present Office practice; otherwise, they need only have a common property useful in the combination claimed.
當使用 Markush claim時，若審查員找到前案揭示A， 即可不必審B~G而直接核駁整個 Markush claim。Markush claim其實是一種“個人創造“的上位用語，當下位被揭露後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“不具新穎性”。當下位被認為顯而易知後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“顯而易知”。
個人認為，當使用 Markush claim時，就可推定申請人已認為 「A B C D E F and G」之間，對本領域具有通常知識者，是可互相替代的。因此，於審查中，審查員甚至可以推定B~G 為顯而易知並加以核駁。
當然，還是可以進行答辯，只是要克服前述的“推定”，申請人需要花比較多的舉證責任，證明B~G的進步性。答辯方式可以比照下位被揭露的情況，進行答辯。
因此，建議若一開始就認為下位概念「A」、「B C and D」及「E F and G」」之間是不可互相替代的，互相具有進步性，希望審查員個別進行檢索及審查，就應該要分三個claim寫。當然這會有「單一性」的問題。
此外，不單純是Markush claim，使用“or”用語的情況也適用。
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/205/205.F2d.185.5935.html
If on examination of a generic Markush type claim, it be found that the applicant has included one or more members known to be old in the art for the same purpose as in the applicant's invention, the group in its entirety must fail of recognition in exactly the same manner as would have been the case had the group of elements of the claim been identified by a single term. In such contingency, a formula of lesser scope may be invoked, provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group. In re Hass et al., supra.3
答辯的重點。
provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group.
【2010年10月20日更新】
以「金,銀,銅,鐵或錫」為例，若找到的前案為「鐵」，此時申請人希望將其限縮至「金」為例。
「a formula of lesser scope」是指「金」的範圍。
「the remaining members of the group」相對於「the major group」，「the remaining members」 加「the major group」等於「the group」。「the remaining members of the group」中，「the remaining members」是指「金」、「the group」是指「金,銀,銅,鐵或錫」。「the major group」是指「銀,銅,鐵或錫」。
「the subgroup」是指「金」，「the generic group」是指「金,銀,銅,鐵或錫」。
「the characteristics of 」和「 a common quality 」個人認為大致上同義，僅是法官希望用不同的用語來表示不同的範圍。「characteristics 」可為導電性，而「a common quality」可為不易氧化的性質。
由於申請人一開始就使用Markush claim代表A B C and D具有a first common quality。因此最好的答辯理由是「B C and D」的具有a second common quality different from the first common quality。
個人認為就是因為申請人一開始使用Markush claim，才讓審查員被教導成A B C and D間具有common quality，能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，如此才會變得較難答辯。審查員少了找出common quality的舉證責任。所以，假如一開始申請人初步判斷A B C and D間可能會被認為具有common quality能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，就要刻意的閃躲，即使自己已認為有common quality，也要刻意地用沒有common quality的語氣來撰寫，清楚的表明申請人從不認為A B C and D間具有common quality，並分三個claim寫或分三個案子申請，這樣子後續的答辯會較輕鬆。
當然，現實與理想，相差很遠，個人想說的僅是理論，
其他，還可以試著用如下極端的方式答辯，亦即雖然申請人使用Markush claim，但A B C and D間卻沒有common quality，亦可以直接承認誤用（當然誤用兩字不必要寫於理由書中），直接向審查員說明A B C and D間卻沒有common quality。但「B C and D」的具有a common quality而且是patentable的。
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0800_803_02.htm
MPEP
This subsection deals with Markush-type generic claims which recite a plurality of alternatively usable substances or members. In most cases, a recitation by enumeration is used because there is no appropriate or true generic language. A Markush-type claim may include independent and distinct inventions. This is true where two or more of the members are so unrelated and diverse that a prior art reference anticipating the claim with respect to one of the members would not render the claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to the other member(s). In applications containing a Markush-type claim that encompasses at least two independent or distinct inventions, the examiner may require a provisional election of a single species prior to examination on the merits. An examiner should set forth a requirement for election of a single disclosed species in a Markush-type claim using form paragraph 8.01 when claims limited to species are present or using form paragraph 8.02 when no species claims are present. See MPEP § 808.01(a) and § 809.02(a). Following election, the Markush-type claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability. If the Markush-type claim is not allowable **, the provisional election will be given effect and examination will be limited to the Markush-type claim and claims to the elected species, with claims drawn to species patentably distinct from the elected species held withdrawn from further consideration.
9/04/2010
請求項的範圍能夠包含不可操作的實施例。
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/1880
claim的範圍是可以包含inoperative的實施例。
"From the point of view of patent laws, there is no requirement that the entire range covered by a claim must be operable. As long as a reasonable range that is covered by a claim is operable, the claim complies with the requierment of the law."
Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.
2164.08(b) Inoperative Subject Matter
The presence of inoperative embodiments within the scope of a claim does not necessarily render a claim nonenabled. The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (prophetic examples do not make the disclosure nonenabling).
請求項的範圍中包含有不可操作的實施例，不必然會使請求項為無法致能。其標準在於：該行業者是否能夠判斷，於該領域中僅僅儘平常所需之努力的情況下，哪些實施例會被認為無法操作或可操作。
「with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.」這一句還真難翻譯。不懂得改成這樣會不會比較看得懂？算不算對？「with expenditure of effort which(expenditure) is no more than normally required in the art.」
claim的範圍是可以包含inoperative的實施例。
"From the point of view of patent laws, there is no requirement that the entire range covered by a claim must be operable. As long as a reasonable range that is covered by a claim is operable, the claim complies with the requierment of the law."
Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.
2164.08(b) Inoperative Subject Matter
The presence of inoperative embodiments within the scope of a claim does not necessarily render a claim nonenabled. The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (prophetic examples do not make the disclosure nonenabling).
請求項的範圍中包含有不可操作的實施例，不必然會使請求項為無法致能。其標準在於：該行業者是否能夠判斷，於該領域中僅僅儘平常所需之努力的情況下，哪些實施例會被認為無法操作或可操作。
「with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.」這一句還真難翻譯。不懂得改成這樣會不會比較看得懂？算不算對？「with expenditure of effort which(expenditure) is no more than normally required in the art.」
8/06/2010
8/02/2010
新型，能夠使用製造方法、功能或功能手段語言來限定嗎？
新型，能夠使用製造方法、功能或功能手段語言來限定嗎？
請參考新型形成審查第一章 4-1-11頁
新型專利之申請專利範圍應敘明物品之形狀、構造或裝置的技術特徵，惟對於只能以製造
方法之技術特徵界定物品的新型者，得以製造方法界定物品之形狀、構造或裝置。
新型專利之申請專利範圍僅於其技術特徵無法以結構方式表示，或以結構方式表示不如以
功能表示更明確時，且對應於該功能之結構或材料於新型說明已充分說明者，方可使用手
段功能用語表示。新型專利之申請專利範圍不得僅單純描述功能。
請參考新型形成審查第一章第4-1-2頁~第4-1-3頁
新型專利申請案是否屬適格之標的，其判斷原則說明如下：
(1)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以二段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項指明該特徵部分在於材料或方法，則非屬適格之標的。
(2)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以不分段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項整體在於描述非屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置的創作，則非屬適格之標的。例如該請求項整體在於描述材料或方法，係非屬適格之標的。
(3)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以不分段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項整體或部分在於描述屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置的創作，則須進一步由新型說明判斷該創作之特定技術特徵，是否明顯屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置，當該單一請求項存在一個以上屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置之特定技術特徵，即屬適格之標的。例如該請求項雖然部分特定技術特徵在於材料或方法，然尚有部分特定技術特徵屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置者，仍屬適格之標的；惟若該請求項由其新型說明之內容已可明顯得知，其整體特定技術特徵在於材料或方法，則非屬適格之標的。
請參考新型形成審查第一章 4-1-11頁
新型專利之申請專利範圍應敘明物品之形狀、構造或裝置的技術特徵，惟對於只能以製造
方法之技術特徵界定物品的新型者，得以製造方法界定物品之形狀、構造或裝置。
新型專利之申請專利範圍僅於其技術特徵無法以結構方式表示，或以結構方式表示不如以
功能表示更明確時，且對應於該功能之結構或材料於新型說明已充分說明者，方可使用手
段功能用語表示。新型專利之申請專利範圍不得僅單純描述功能。
請參考新型形成審查第一章第4-1-2頁~第4-1-3頁
新型專利申請案是否屬適格之標的，其判斷原則說明如下：
(1)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以二段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項指明該特徵部分在於材料或方法，則非屬適格之標的。
(2)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以不分段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項整體在於描述非屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置的創作，則非屬適格之標的。例如該請求項整體在於描述材料或方法，係非屬適格之標的。
(3)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以不分段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項整體或部分在於描述屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置的創作，則須進一步由新型說明判斷該創作之特定技術特徵，是否明顯屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置，當該單一請求項存在一個以上屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置之特定技術特徵，即屬適格之標的。例如該請求項雖然部分特定技術特徵在於材料或方法，然尚有部分特定技術特徵屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置者，仍屬適格之標的；惟若該請求項由其新型說明之內容已可明顯得知，其整體特定技術特徵在於材料或方法，則非屬適格之標的。
5/14/2010
“inoperative”、”enablement” 的區別
“inoperative”、”enablement”區別
要學會“用字”還真難，感覺上這幾個字的意思都很像，可是法官卻用來表達他們想要表達的不同意思。
http://www.chanesq.com/cases/cases16.html
The district court essentially concluded that the invention claimed in the patents at issue simply did not work, that is, could not clean wafers, and therefore it would require undue experimentation to carry out the invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2000). This court has recognized the relationship between the enablement requirement of § 112 and the utility requirement of § 101. See, e.g., In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[I]f the claims in an application fail to meet the utility requirement because the invention is inoperative, they also fail to meet the enablement requirement because a person skilled in the art cannot practice the invention"); EMI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, however, the district court similarly set the standard for utility too high for this invention. While the district court's major premise is correct that an inoperable invention is not enabled, the district court erred in its minor premise that the claimed invention is inoperable and lacks utility.
The inoperability standard for utility applies primarily to claims with impossible limitations. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims found inoperable because they require violating the principle of conservation of mass); Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (claims to a perpetual motion machine ruled inoperable). Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.
Even if the single Full Flow embodiment does not achieve complete cleaning, that alone would not render the invention inoperative.
再參考MPEP 2164.07 的內容
For example, if an applicant has claimed a process of treating a certain disease condition with a certain compound and provided a credible basis for asserting that the compound is useful in that regard, but to actually practice the invention as claimed a person skilled in the relevant art would have to engage in an undue amount of experimentation, the claim may be defective under 35 U.S.C. 112, but not 35 U.S.C. 101.
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/1880
這裏提到的是若有「limitation impossible to meet」是違反 § 112，而不是§ 101。
"a claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under § 112. Moreover, when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either § 101 or § 112 of 35 U.S.C."
一些自己的想法。
如果是在還沒有發明“電燈”的年代。
「電燈、電發光裝置」，就是屬於「limitation impossible to meet」。但是並不屬於「a means for accomplishing an unattainable result」。
如果是在還沒有發明“電”的年代。
也許「電燈、電發光裝置」就會被認為「a means for accomplishing an unattainable result」。更嚴重一點也許發明人會被是個瘋子也說不定。
「電發光裝置」屬於功能性用語，對於這種用語的解釋很多需要考慮到現行技術的水平。
要學會“用字”還真難，感覺上這幾個字的意思都很像，可是法官卻用來表達他們想要表達的不同意思。
http://www.chanesq.com/cases/cases16.html
The district court essentially concluded that the invention claimed in the patents at issue simply did not work, that is, could not clean wafers, and therefore it would require undue experimentation to carry out the invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2000). This court has recognized the relationship between the enablement requirement of § 112 and the utility requirement of § 101. See, e.g., In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[I]f the claims in an application fail to meet the utility requirement because the invention is inoperative, they also fail to meet the enablement requirement because a person skilled in the art cannot practice the invention"); EMI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, however, the district court similarly set the standard for utility too high for this invention. While the district court's major premise is correct that an inoperable invention is not enabled, the district court erred in its minor premise that the claimed invention is inoperable and lacks utility.
The inoperability standard for utility applies primarily to claims with impossible limitations. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims found inoperable because they require violating the principle of conservation of mass); Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (claims to a perpetual motion machine ruled inoperable). Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.
Even if the single Full Flow embodiment does not achieve complete cleaning, that alone would not render the invention inoperative.
再參考MPEP 2164.07 的內容
For example, if an applicant has claimed a process of treating a certain disease condition with a certain compound and provided a credible basis for asserting that the compound is useful in that regard, but to actually practice the invention as claimed a person skilled in the relevant art would have to engage in an undue amount of experimentation, the claim may be defective under 35 U.S.C. 112, but not 35 U.S.C. 101.
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/1880
這裏提到的是若有「limitation impossible to meet」是違反 § 112，而不是§ 101。
"a claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under § 112. Moreover, when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either § 101 or § 112 of 35 U.S.C."
一些自己的想法。
如果是在還沒有發明“電燈”的年代。
「電燈、電發光裝置」，就是屬於「limitation impossible to meet」。但是並不屬於「a means for accomplishing an unattainable result」。
如果是在還沒有發明“電”的年代。
也許「電燈、電發光裝置」就會被認為「a means for accomplishing an unattainable result」。更嚴重一點也許發明人會被是個瘋子也說不定。
「電發光裝置」屬於功能性用語，對於這種用語的解釋很多需要考慮到現行技術的水平。
3/28/2010
專利公開公報及專利公告公報的不同
專利公開公報及專利公告公報的不同。
1、 原則上每一件專利申請案，其專利說明書在申請日之18個月會被公開於"公開公報"，公開的內容為申請當時的說明書。公開號大致為2000/000000A。但美國專利實務中，有「申請不公開」的制度，所以如果申請人申請不公開時，該專利說明書就不會被公開。
2、 專利經審查而核准後，該專利就會被公告於"公告公報"中，每一件專利都一定會被公告，公告的內容為經過審查而被修改過後的說明書、申請專利範圍及圖式。公告號大致為分為兩種：一為曾公開過的US700000B2；另一種為不曾被公開過的US700000B1。
3、 因此，只要是有公開最後又順利核准的專利，都會被記錄於"公開資料庫"及"公告資料庫"。未被核准的就僅會記錄在"公開資料庫"。申請過不公開且又順利取得專利的僅會記錄在"公告資料庫"。
公開號及專利號中最後面的英文字母及數字，一般稱為"kind code"，有它特殊的意思，請參考：
http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/2354.html
(published on or after 2 Jan 2001)
Exemplary publ. no. Code meaning
US 2003/0157684 A1 first publication of application
US 2004/0038291 A2 second or subsequent publication of application, requested by applicant
US 2004/0185440 A9 correction of error(s) in previous publication (either A1 or A2); error(s) made by USPTO
US 6,207,883 B1 patent which was not published as a patent application
US 6,791,013 B2 patent which was prior published as a patent application (US 2002/0068359 A1)
US 6,197,585 C1 re-examined patent; claims may be unchanged, amended or canceled; appear to only be published in Official Gazette (OG)
re-exams are requested by applicant or third party
US RE038,571 E1 re-issued patent; claims may be broadened or narrowed; re-issuances are requested by applicant
US 2004/0177423 P1 first publication of plant patent application
US PP15,114 P2 plant patent which was not published as a patent application
US PPnn,nnn P3 plant patent which was published as a patent application
3/11/2010
答辯稿中請求項編號後方括號中所加註意指？
美國專利答辯稿會在各請求項編號後方括號中所加註指明之該案請求項的當次狀態：(original)、(currently amended)、(canceled)、(withdrawn)、(new)、(previously presented)以及(not entered)，該些用語是什麼意思？請參考如下。
Amendments to the Claims (37 CFR§1.121(c)):
If an amendment adds, deletes, or changes any claim, a listing of all claim numbers that are, or were, in the application, must be provided in sequential ascending order. After each claim number, a status identifier, in parentheses, should be provided. After each status identifier, the full text of the claim, except for “canceled” or “not entered” claims, must also be provided with changes shown in the manner of marking described above. Claims that are not currently being amended should be presented in clean copy form.
For each claim, only one status identifier from the following list must be used:
(Original): claim filed with the application
(Currently amended): claim being amended in the current amendment document
(Canceled): claim deleted from the application
(Withdrawn): claim still in the application, but in a non-elected statusPage 3
(Withdrawn -- Currently amended): claim in a non-elected status and being amended in the current amendment document
(Previously presented): claim added or amended in an earlier amendment document
(New): claim being added in the current amendment document
(Not entered): claim presented in a previous amendment document but which either (1) has not been entered or (2) the status of entry is unknown to Applicant (applies primarily to after final amendments)
Amendments to the Claims (37 CFR§1.121(c)):
If an amendment adds, deletes, or changes any claim, a listing of all claim numbers that are, or were, in the application, must be provided in sequential ascending order. After each claim number, a status identifier, in parentheses, should be provided. After each status identifier, the full text of the claim, except for “canceled” or “not entered” claims, must also be provided with changes shown in the manner of marking described above. Claims that are not currently being amended should be presented in clean copy form.
For each claim, only one status identifier from the following list must be used:
(Original): claim filed with the application
(Currently amended): claim being amended in the current amendment document
(Canceled): claim deleted from the application
(Withdrawn): claim still in the application, but in a non-elected statusPage 3
(Withdrawn -- Currently amended): claim in a non-elected status and being amended in the current amendment document
(Previously presented): claim added or amended in an earlier amendment document
(New): claim being added in the current amendment document
(Not entered): claim presented in a previous amendment document but which either (1) has not been entered or (2) the status of entry is unknown to Applicant (applies primarily to after final amendments)
1/31/2010
權利之移轉的相關事項
http://www.avice.co.jp/sangaku/skwd0380.html
「特許権の移転」とは、財産権としての性格を有する特許権を他人に移すことをいう。
「特許権の移転」は、相続、合併等の一般承継による移転と、譲渡等の特定承継による移転に分けることができる。相続、合併等一般承継による移転は、登録しなくてもその効力は生じるが、譲渡等特定承継による移転は、登録しなければ効力は発生しない。「特許権の移転」を行う場合は、移転登録申請書を提出し、特許庁の特許原簿に移転登録する必要がある。譲渡や法人の合併等により移転登録申請書を提出する場合は、譲渡証書、商業登記謄本等の書類を添付する必要がある。移転登録に要する費用は、相続・法人の合併等による権利の移転の場合は一件につき3000円、その他の移転の場合は一件につき15000円である。
專利權的移轉分成：因繼承或合併等之一般繼任的移轉；以及因讓渡等之特定繼任的移轉。因一般繼任的權利移轉即使不進行登錄亦能產生效力，但是特定繼任的權利移轉如不進行登錄則不能產生效力（特許法第98條）。進行專權移轉時，必需提出「移轉登錄申請書」，並於專利局的專利登記簿上進行移轉登錄。因讓渡或法人合併等提出移轉登錄申請書時，必需添付讓渡證明書、商業登記謄本等文件。移轉登錄所需費用，繼承、法人合併等的權利移轉時每件3000元，其他移轉時年件15000元。
https://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/tetuzuki/ryoukin/hyou.htm
繼承等最新的手續費已改為：
承継の届出（名義変更）：4200元。
移轉登錄的期限：
相關法條請參見特許法第34條第5項及第98條之2，該些法條紅色部分的翻譯如下：一般繼位的情況時應不延遲地向專利局長官提出申請。
名詞定義：
http://oumekko.at.infoseek.co.jp/hourei/tadachini.html
「直ちに」は、最も時間的に早くという意味で、何はともあれすぐにしなくちゃならないときに使うんだ。
立即，指最快的時間，使用於「即使有任何問題也必須立刻進行」的情況。
「遅滞なく」は、正当な（もっともな）理由とか合理的な（筋が通ってる）理由がなければ「直ちに」しなくちゃならないときに使うよ。
不延遲，使用於「當沒有正當理由或合理的理由時，必須“立即”進行」的情況。
「速やかに」は、努力的な意味で使うので、「遅滞」があっても「直ちに」違法（法律違反）とかにはならないよ。
儘速，使用於儘量努力的情況，即使有延遲亦不算違反“立即情況”（違反法律）。
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/一般承継
一般承継の具体例は、自然人については相続であり、法人については合併及び会社分割である。
一般繼任的具體例有，自然人時為繼承；而法人時則為合併或公司分割。
http://www.propatent.jp/cgi-bin/2007/12/post_66.html
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/tetuzuki/touroku/trans_rights.htm
大量移轉時，日本特許廳有特別專線。
「特許権の移転」とは、財産権としての性格を有する特許権を他人に移すことをいう。
「特許権の移転」は、相続、合併等の一般承継による移転と、譲渡等の特定承継による移転に分けることができる。相続、合併等一般承継による移転は、登録しなくてもその効力は生じるが、譲渡等特定承継による移転は、登録しなければ効力は発生しない。「特許権の移転」を行う場合は、移転登録申請書を提出し、特許庁の特許原簿に移転登録する必要がある。譲渡や法人の合併等により移転登録申請書を提出する場合は、譲渡証書、商業登記謄本等の書類を添付する必要がある。移転登録に要する費用は、相続・法人の合併等による権利の移転の場合は一件につき3000円、その他の移転の場合は一件につき15000円である。
專利權的移轉分成：因繼承或合併等之一般繼任的移轉；以及因讓渡等之特定繼任的移轉。因一般繼任的權利移轉即使不進行登錄亦能產生效力，但是特定繼任的權利移轉如不進行登錄則不能產生效力（特許法第98條）。進行專權移轉時，必需提出「移轉登錄申請書」，並於專利局的專利登記簿上進行移轉登錄。因讓渡或法人合併等提出移轉登錄申請書時，必需添付讓渡證明書、商業登記謄本等文件。移轉登錄所需費用，繼承、法人合併等的權利移轉時每件3000元，其他移轉時年件15000元。
https://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/tetuzuki/ryoukin/hyou.htm
繼承等最新的手續費已改為：
承継の届出（名義変更）：4200元。
移轉登錄的期限：
相關法條請參見特許法第34條第5項及第98條之2，該些法條紅色部分的翻譯如下：一般繼位的情況時應不延遲地向專利局長官提出申請。
http://www.houko.com/00/01/S34/121.HTM#s4
申請後未取得專利前
第34条第5項
５ 特許を受ける権利の相続その他の一般承継があつたときは、承継人は、遅滞なく、その旨を特許庁長官に届け出なければならない。
取得專利後
第98条之2（登録の効果）
２ 前項各号の相続その他の一般承継の場合は、遅滞なく、その旨を特許庁長官に届け出なければならない。
名詞定義：
http://oumekko.at.infoseek.co.jp/hourei/tadachini.html
「直ちに」は、最も時間的に早くという意味で、何はともあれすぐにしなくちゃならないときに使うんだ。
立即，指最快的時間，使用於「即使有任何問題也必須立刻進行」的情況。
「遅滞なく」は、正当な（もっともな）理由とか合理的な（筋が通ってる）理由がなければ「直ちに」しなくちゃならないときに使うよ。
不延遲，使用於「當沒有正當理由或合理的理由時，必須“立即”進行」的情況。
「速やかに」は、努力的な意味で使うので、「遅滞」があっても「直ちに」違法（法律違反）とかにはならないよ。
儘速，使用於儘量努力的情況，即使有延遲亦不算違反“立即情況”（違反法律）。
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/一般承継
一般承継の具体例は、自然人については相続であり、法人については合併及び会社分割である。
一般繼任的具體例有，自然人時為繼承；而法人時則為合併或公司分割。
http://www.propatent.jp/cgi-bin/2007/12/post_66.html
専用権説によれば、登録の効果とはまさに登録の効果であり、効力発生の要件になるだろう。登録がなければ、効力が生じない。ただし、例えば登録があれば必ず移転があるか。登録に与信力は与えられてないから、登録したことは必ずしも移転したことにならない。 移転登録は、必要条件であるが十分条件ではない。移転を主張するためには登録がなければならないが、それに加えて、当事者間の約定あるいは確定判決などがなければならない。他人が本人に無断で移転登録をしても、それで移転になるわけではない。しかし、第三者が登録の表示を悪意なく信じた場合、信じた第三者は裁判で保護される場合がある。この辺のことは特に争いはないだろう。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/tetuzuki/touroku/trans_rights.htm
大量移轉時，日本特許廳有特別專線。
1/17/2010
進步性判決
The fallacy of this reasoning is that no one of the references suggests such a substitution, quite apart from the result which would be obtained thereby. Such piecemeal reconstruction of the prior art patents in the light of appellant's disclosure is contrary to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The ever present question in cases within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. § 103 is whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of the prior art at the time the invention was made.
It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.
從任一參考文獻中，挑出或選擇僅僅某一部分，單只因為此部分能支持某一特定立場，而排除讓熟悉此領域技藝者從此參考文獻之教示所能合理完整理解的其他重要的部分，這是在103段落的架構下所不容許的。
The ever present question in cases within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. § 103 is whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of the prior art at the time the invention was made.
It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.
從任一參考文獻中，挑出或選擇僅僅某一部分，單只因為此部分能支持某一特定立場，而排除讓熟悉此領域技藝者從此參考文獻之教示所能合理完整理解的其他重要的部分，這是在103段落的架構下所不容許的。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)