12/22/2012

獨立項不具可專利性時,那麼獨立項的發明人還是附屬項的發明人嗎?

abc獨立項不具可專利性,且abcd附屬項可專利,但d由他人提供建議而得時,那麼獨立項的發明人還是附屬項的發明人嗎?

MPEP 2317

“[a] prior art reference that is not a statutory bar may be overcome by two generally recognized methods”: an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131, or an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 “showing that the relevant disclosure is a description of the applicant’s own work.”

35 U.S.C. 102(f) “does not require an inquiry into the relative dates of a reference and the application”, and therefore may be applicable where subsections (a) and (e) are not available for references.

The party or parties executing an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 are presumed to be the inventors. Driscoll v. Cebalo, 5 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1982); In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA 1982)

102(f)的重點在於,誰才是發明人。即使他的發明最後被證實為不具新穎性。

102(f)的參考文獻與日期無關,重點在於“出處及來源”。

當其他人以提出一參考文獻,舉證發明人之abc發明已公開,並希望藉以證明:發明人之abc的發明是參考該文獻而不是發明人的原創。

則要克服習知參考文獻,發明人的舉證責任僅需要一份宣誓書,即足夠克服102(f)的拒絕理由。

只要abc的發明,是原發明人自己想出來的,即便最後被證實abc為已知的,那麼abc也還是其附屬項abcd的發明人,他們對abcd還是有智能性的貢獻。

沒有留言: