I305629，殺價式拍賣之方法。
是奇怪的案例。
本案智慧局於2011/12/29，決定舉發不成立，而專利依然有效。
但是，依據裁判字號：智慧財產法院民事判決101年度民專訴字第56號，裁判日期：102年1月25日，法院認為：
系爭專利不論在「欲解決之技術問題點」、「對照先前技術之功效」、「殺價式拍賣之方法與習知拍賣系統之比較」、「具新穎性之原因」以及「具進步性之原因」，皆非在於執行商業方法之電腦硬體及程式軟體，僅在於商業方法本身，而利用電腦硬體及程式軟體的目的即在取代人工作業，將原本屬於人類的作業方法單純的利用電腦硬體及程式軟體予以實施者。
系爭專利申請專利範圍第1至5項為非屬利用自然法則之創作，違反92年專利法第21條而有應撤銷之事由存在，則依前述智慧財產案件審理法第16條第2項規定，自不得對被告主張權利。
因而判決該專利有無效理由。
即使，最後在法院，實質上已被判無效了，但是專利還是持續地存在。
9/18/2015
claim 中使用 the 與 said 的區別
the 與 said，都可以用來表示前面提過的元件，但the還可以用來表示前面雖然沒有提過但卻是某一元件的“固有成分”。例如，“the outer surface of said sphere”，前述使用方式是said所沒有的，請參考2173.05(e) 。
另外，使用said時表示“元件（限制條件）”，但使用the時可以表示“元件”或“功件（非限制條件）”，因此最好是不要在功件前加said。。請參考Landis 3.4：「Each succeeding mention of the same workpiece can be preceded by the definite article "the," but preferably not with the definit article "said" because that the word has typically been used for referring back to a previous actual claim element.」
剛入行的時候，讀Landis說“said”比較常用，所以小弟一開始都使用“said”，直到被前輩要求改成“the”，才知道使用“the”的好處，就是不用想太多。
雖然，the有表示前面雖然沒有提過但卻是某一元件的“固有成分”的功能，但是也建議不要用。幾年來的經驗告訴我，不是每個審查委員都知道或買單，花費精力向審查委員解釋或答辯，只是自找麻煩而已。後來即使是固有成分，也老實地先提「the spherehaving an outer surface, the outer surface of the sphere is ...... 」。
2173.05(e) Lack of Antecedent Basis
Inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis in therecitation of the components themselves. For example, the limitation “theouter surface of said sphere” would not require an antecedent recitation that the sphere has an outer surface. See Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d1354, 1359, 61 USPQ2d 1216, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir 2001) (holding that recitationof “an ellipse” provided antecedent basis for “an ellipse having a majordiameter” because “[t]here can be no dispute that mathematically aninherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major diameter”).
另外，使用said時表示“元件（限制條件）”，但使用the時可以表示“元件”或“功件（非限制條件）”，因此最好是不要在功件前加said。。請參考Landis 3.4：「Each succeeding mention of the same workpiece can be preceded by the definite article "the," but preferably not with the definit article "said" because that the word has typically been used for referring back to a previous actual claim element.」
剛入行的時候，讀Landis說“said”比較常用，所以小弟一開始都使用“said”，直到被前輩要求改成“the”，才知道使用“the”的好處，就是不用想太多。
雖然，the有表示前面雖然沒有提過但卻是某一元件的“固有成分”的功能，但是也建議不要用。幾年來的經驗告訴我，不是每個審查委員都知道或買單，花費精力向審查委員解釋或答辯，只是自找麻煩而已。後來即使是固有成分，也老實地先提「the spherehaving an outer surface, the outer surface of the sphere is ...... 」。
2173.05(e) Lack of Antecedent Basis
Inherent components of elements recited have antecedent basis in therecitation of the components themselves. For example, the limitation “theouter surface of said sphere” would not require an antecedent recitation that the sphere has an outer surface. See Bose Corp. v. JBL, Inc., 274 F.3d1354, 1359, 61 USPQ2d 1216, 1218-19 (Fed. Cir 2001) (holding that recitationof “an ellipse” provided antecedent basis for “an ellipse having a majordiameter” because “[t]here can be no dispute that mathematically aninherent characteristic of an ellipse is a major diameter”).
8/21/2015
7/22/2015
日本審查員檢索專利的實務：
日本審查員檢索專利的實務：
使用關鍵字並進行多階檢索， 第一階大約20000篇，第二階8000篇、第三階5000篇，再限縮到500篇。
審查時至少需要看500篇左右，範圍大概在（300~600）篇。
因此若是做無效調查，至少需要查到1000~1500篇左右。
搭配IPC及FI使用, FI主要是IPC的下一階。
特許分類検索
http://www5.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/pmgs1/pmgs1/pmgs
http://www.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/Tokujitu/pcsj_top.ipdl?N0000=1500
使用關鍵字並進行多階檢索， 第一階大約20000篇，第二階8000篇、第三階5000篇，再限縮到500篇。
審查時至少需要看500篇左右，範圍大概在（300~600）篇。
因此若是做無效調查，至少需要查到1000~1500篇左右。
搭配IPC及FI使用, FI主要是IPC的下一階。
特許分類検索
http://www5.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/pmgs1/pmgs1/pmgs
http://www.ipdl.inpit.go.jp/Tokujitu/pcsj_top.ipdl?N0000=1500
5/20/2015
日本與美國間的電子交換。
https://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki/t_tokkyo/shutsugan/uspto_ver2.htm
其中還需要向美國專利局提交「電子的交換許可證明(PTO/SB/39）」，該文件可由「37CFR 1.14(c)」所規定之人簽署。
(c) Power to inspect a pending or abandoned application. Access to an application may be provided to any person if the application file is available, and the application contains written authority (e.g., a power to inspect) granting access to such person. The written authority must be signed by:
(1) The applicant;
(2) A patent practitioner of record;
(3) The assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest;
(4) The inventor or a joint inventor; or
(5) A registered attorney or agent named in the papers accompanying the application papers filed under § 1.53 or the national stage documents filed under § 1.495, if a power of attorney has not been appointed under § 1.32.
https://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki/t_tokkyo/shutsugan/uspto_ver2.htm
其中還需要向美國專利局提交「電子的交換許可證明(PTO/SB/39）」，該文件可由「37CFR 1.14(c)」所規定之人簽署。
(c) Power to inspect a pending or abandoned application. Access to an application may be provided to any person if the application file is available, and the application contains written authority (e.g., a power to inspect) granting access to such person. The written authority must be signed by:
(1) The applicant;
(2) A patent practitioner of record;
(3) The assignee or an assignee of an undivided part interest;
(4) The inventor or a joint inventor; or
(5) A registered attorney or agent named in the papers accompanying the application papers filed under § 1.53 or the national stage documents filed under § 1.495, if a power of attorney has not been appointed under § 1.32.
5/14/2015
負面表現排除前案，可例外視為未引進新事項
【 2026/09/03 更新】
於114年度民專上字第7號判決中，上訴人(即專利權人)為排除乙證3(先前技術)所揭露之「油封的外徑與內徑的比值為1.357」，向智慧局申請更正系爭專利之申請專利範圍，在系爭專利請求項1「每一油封的外徑與內徑的比值小於或等於1.7」後，添加「但不包含1.357至1.7」技術特徵，此更正申請業經智慧局「不予更正」之核駁審定，本判決同樣指出，上訴人並未提出僅更正「但不包含1.357」之內容，無法例外視為未引進新事項，屬實質變更系爭專利公告時之專利範圍，故上訴人所提更正自非合法，仍以更正前之系爭專利權利範圍為據。
【不行】：「每一油封的外徑與內徑的比值小於或等於1.7」「但不包含1.357至1.7」
【可行】：「每一油封的外徑與內徑的比值小於或等於1.7」「但不包含1.357」
真是莫名奇妙的法律邏輯啊！
【 2022/01/04 更新】
第2 - 6 - 10頁
上述以負面表現方式之修正限於申請專利發明為克服不具新穎 性、擬制喪失新穎或不符先申請原則之引證文件的情形 ，惟「同日 申請」之引證文件不適用該排除方式修正。
請參照智慧局的公告。
https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/cp-85-883542-7afc9-1.html
專利師公會曾經就此問題發文給智慧局，資料如下。
【 2021/04/19 更新】
【 2021/02/07 更新】
第二篇發明專利實體審查 ，記載有：
第六章 修正 「4.2.3 允許的變更」的章節（第2 - 6 - 12頁）
d.採用負面表現具體數值的方式進行修改。未揭露於申請時說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式之數值固屬新事項，惟若該數值屬於先前技術，例外允許以排除（例如不包含、不包括）的記載方式修正之。例如：原申請專利範圍記載某一數值 X1=600～10000，先前技術之範圍為X2=240～1500，因 X1=600～1500 與 X2 部分重疊而不具新穎性時，由於數值 1500 並未揭露於申請時說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式中，故不允許將該數值包含在內而將申請專利範圍變更為 X1=1500～10000。但例外允許藉排除重疊部分之記載方式，將申請專利範圍所記載之數值範圍修正為「X1＞1500～10000」或「X1=600～10000，但不包括 600～1500」。
2.4.1.5 表現方式所致之不明確
(1)請求項中使用負面表現方式，例如「除……之外」、「非……」或類似用語。
惟若此類用語在特定技術領域中具有明確的涵義，或該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者能瞭解其範圍，則得以此類用語表現。
此外，若以正面記載技術特徵之方式無法明確、簡潔界定請求項時，例如為迴避先前技術，得將屬於先前技術的部分，以負面表現方式明確排除。
4.2 申請專利範圍
4.2.2.允許的刪除
第2 - 6 - 10頁。
(7)由請求項中排除與先前技術重疊部分之技術內容會導致引進新事項，因為該等被排除之內容並非由申請時說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式所能直接無歧異得知者。惟若無法以正面敘述方式明確、簡潔地界定排除後之標的時，得以「排除（disclaimer）」與先前技術重疊部分的負面敘述方式記載。例如請求項記載上位概念技術特徵，說明書中對應記載多個選項之下位概念技術特徵，若其中包含某個選項之發明已為先前技術，為避免與先前技術重疊，得允許於說明書中刪除該選項，而於請求項中以排除（例如不包含、不包括、除外）該選項之方式予以修正，即以負面表現方式記載上位概念技術特徵，雖然修正後之說明書及請求項增加申請時未揭露之技術特徵，亦即被排除之先前技術，惟得例外視為未引進新事項。於上述情況，即使申請時說明書中未揭露該先前技術，亦允許於說明書及請求項之上位概念技術特徵中直接以排除該先前技術之負面敘述方式予以修正，修正後之說明書及請求項中雖增加申請時未揭露之技術特徵，亦得例外視為未引進新事項。
5.更正之效果
6.審查注意事項
(10)一般而言，從請求項中刪除與先前技術重疊的部分，由於該等除外內容並非由原說明書、申請專利範圍、圖式所能直接無歧異得知，故屬引進新事項；惟如因為刪除該重疊部分後使請求項剩餘之標的不能經由正面的表現方式明確、簡潔地界定時，得以排除（disclaimer）與
先前技術重疊部分的負面表現方式記載，此時在更正後之請求項雖出現了申請時說明書所未揭露之技術特徵，得例外視為未引進新事項。
【2016/10/7更新】
【臺灣2015年的審查基準】
審查基準第二篇第六章之「4.2.2.允許的刪除」的章節（2 - 6 - 10），記載有：
(7)由請求項中排除與先前技術重疊部分之技術內容會導致引進新事項，因為該等被排除之內容並非由申請時說明書、申請專利範圍或圖式所能直接無歧異得知者。惟若無法以正面敘述方式明確、簡潔地界定排除後之標的時，得以「排除（disclaimer）」與先前技術重疊部分的負面敘述方式記載。例如請求項記載上位概念技術特徵，說明書中對應記載多個選項之下位概念技術特徵，若其中包含某個選項之發明已為先前技術，為避免與先前技術重疊，得允許於說明書中刪除該選項，而於請求項中以排除（例如不包含、不包括、除外）該選項之方式予以修正，即以負面表現方式記載上位概念技術特徵，雖然修正後之說明書及請求項增加申請時未揭露之技術特徵，亦即被排除之先前技術，惟得例外視為未引進新事項。於上述情況，即使申請時說明書中未揭露該先前技術，亦允許於說明書及請求項之上位概念技術特徵中直接以排除該先前技術之負面敘述方式予以修正，修正後之說明書及請求項中雖增加申請時未揭露之技術特徵，亦得例外視為未引進新事項。
於上述情況，即使申請時說明書中未揭露該先前技術，亦允許於說明書及請求項之上位概念技術特徵中直接以排除該先前技術之負面敘述方式予以修正，修正後之說明書及請求項中雖增加申請時未揭露之技術特徵，亦得例外視為未引進新事項。
【臺灣2011年的審查基準】
請參考審查基準第二篇「發明專利實體審查」第六章「說明書及圖式之補充、修正及更正」之「1.4.1.4.2 刪除」的章節。其記載有：「此外，若在說明書中雖未揭露先前技術之技術特徵時，亦允許在請求項中以排除該先前技術之技術特徵之負面表現方式修正，此時在修正後之請求項雖出現了原說明書所未揭露之技術特徵，可例外視為未引進新事項。」
【2015/9/7更新】
美國：
說明書雖然沒有記載時，可以用說明書已“暗示”或“固有地”揭示的方式來答辯。
To
comply with the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. 112, para. 1, or to be entitled to an earlier priority date or filing
date under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, or 365(c), each claim
limitation must be expressly, implicitly, or inherently supported
in the originally filed disclosure. When an explicit limitation in a claim
“is not
present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown
that a person of ordinary skill would have understood, at the time the patent
application was filed, that the description requires that limitation.” Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). See also In re Wright, 866 F.2d 422, 425, 9 USPQ2d 1649, 1651 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) (Original specification for method of forming images using
photosensitive microcapsules which describes removal of microcapsules from
surface and warns that capsules not be disturbed prior to formation of image,
unequivocally teaches absence of permanently fixed microcapsules and supports
amended language of claims requiring that microcapsules be “not permanently fixed” to underlying
surface, and therefore meets description requirement of 35 U.S.C. 112.); In re
Robins, 429 F.2d 452, 456-57, 166 USPQ 552, 555 (CCPA 1970) (“[W]here no explicit description of a generic invention is to be
found in the specification[,] ... mention of
representative compounds may provide an implicit description
upon which to base generic claim language.”);
2/05/2015
1/22/2013
12/22/2012
「Traverse 」一詞是魔術用語，用來保留「Petition」的權利。
「Traverse 」一詞是魔術用語，用來保留「Petition」的權利。
Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition
MPEP 818.03(c) Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition:
"800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
818.03(c) Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition
37 CFR 1.144 Petition from requirement for restriction.
After a final requirement for restriction, the applicant, in addition to making any reply due on the remainder of the action, may petition the Director to review the requirement. Petition may be deferred until after final action on or allowance of claims to the invention elected, but must be filed not later than appeal. A petition will not be considered if reconsideration of the requirement was not requested (see § 1.181).
If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse and be so indicated to the applicant by use of form paragraph 8.25.02.
¶ 8.25.02 Election Without Traverse Based on Incomplete Reply
Applicant's election of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse ( MPEP § 818.03(a))."
可以再參考下面連結的文章：
enpan's Patent & Linux practice: With or Without Traverse after Restriction/Election:
"With or Without Traverse after Restriction/Election"
Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition
MPEP 818.03(c) Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition:
"800 Restriction in Applications Filed Under 35 U.S.C. 111; Double Patenting
818.03(c) Must Traverse To Preserve Right of Petition
37 CFR 1.144 Petition from requirement for restriction.
After a final requirement for restriction, the applicant, in addition to making any reply due on the remainder of the action, may petition the Director to review the requirement. Petition may be deferred until after final action on or allowance of claims to the invention elected, but must be filed not later than appeal. A petition will not be considered if reconsideration of the requirement was not requested (see § 1.181).
If applicant does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election should be treated as an election without traverse and be so indicated to the applicant by use of form paragraph 8.25.02.
¶ 8.25.02 Election Without Traverse Based on Incomplete Reply
Applicant's election of [1] in the reply filed on [2] is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse ( MPEP § 818.03(a))."
可以再參考下面連結的文章：
enpan's Patent & Linux practice: With or Without Traverse after Restriction/Election:
"With or Without Traverse after Restriction/Election"
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。
12/16/2012
12/15/2012
專利工程師提供意見，是否應視為發明人？
專利工程師提供意見，是否應視為發明人？
專利工程師所提供的概念，是與發明人溝通後衍生所產生，應視為衍生概念，因此不得列為發明人。
MPEP 2137:
"Adoption of the ideas and materials from another can become a derivation."
While derivation will bar the issuance of a patent to the deriver, a disclosure by the deriver, absent a bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), will not bar the issuance of a patent to the party from which the subject matter was derived. In re Costello, 717 F.2d 1346, 1349, 219 USPQ 389, 390-91 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
衍生概念是不准允衍生者取得專利權的事由，但是在沒有35 U.S.C. 102(b)之不准專利事由的情況下，衍生者的揭露內容不能阻卻發明人取得從其所衍生之主題的專利權。
DERIVATION REQUIRES COMPLETE CONCEPTION BY ANOTHER AND COMMUNICATION TO THE ALLEGED DERIVER
“The mere fact that a claim recites the use of various components, each of which can be argumentatively assumed to be old, does not provide a proper basis for a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(f).” Ex parte Billottet, 192 USPQ 413, 415 (Bd. App. 1976). Derivation requires complete conception by another and communication of that conception by any means to the party charged with derivation prior to any date on which it can be shown that the one charged with derivation possessed knowledge of the invention. Kilbey v. Thiele, 199 USPQ 290, 294 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1978).
Derivation 要符合幾個要件：
1、他人的完整概念（complete conception by another）。
2、在證實衍生者已擁有該發明的知識的日期之前，透過任一方式，與該衍生者溝通該概念。
該衍生者（the party charged with derivation）；衍生者（the one charged with derivation）
將衍生者比喻為IFPE時：
通常IFPE擁有該發明的知識，是與發明人溝通之後，亦即在溝通前IFPE不具有該發明 的知識。則前述第二點為：在IFPE不具有該發明的知識前，與IFPE溝通該概念。
See also Price v. Symsek, 988 F.2d 1187, 1190, 26 USPQ2d 1031, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Hedgewick v. Akers, 497 F.2d 905, 908, 182 USPQ 167, 169 (CCPA 1974). “Communication of a complete conception must be sufficient to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to construct and successfully operate the invention.” Hedgewick, 497 F.2d at 908, 182 USPQ at 169. See also Gambro Lundia AB v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 110 F.3d 1573, 1577, 42 USPQ2d 1378, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Issue in proving derivation is “whether the communication enabled one of ordinary skill in the art to make the patented invention.”).
Who should be named as an inventor on my patent application? | iPatent Attorney:
"Who should be named as an inventor on my patent application?"
Conception is established when the invention is made sufficiently clear to enable one skilled in the art to reduce it to practice without the extensive experimentation to make the invention operative.
Merely hoping that something will work does not establish conception, since there is not a definite understanding or a reasonable expectation that the invention will work.
But simply suggesting an idea of a result to be accomplished, rather than the means of accomplishing it, does not make someone a co-inventor.
What is NOT an "Intellectual Contribution"
- supplying product for use in the invention
- derivation (the complete conception of the invention and communication of that conception to another*) of the invention is not inventorship¤ * Kilbey v. Thiele, 199 USPQ 290, 294 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1978). ¤ 35 USC 102f
- （發明的完整概念以及將概念與他人溝通之）發明的衍生不是發明人。
MPEP 2138.04 "Conception" [R-1]
AS LONG AS THE INVENTOR MAINTAINS INTELLECTUAL DOMINATION OVER MAKING THE INVENTION, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND MATERIALS MAY BE ADOPTED FROM OTHERS
An inventor may consider and adopt ideas, suggestions and materials derived from many sources: a suggestion from an employee, a hired consultant or a friend even if the adopted material proves to be the key that unlocks the problem so long as the inventor "maintains intellectual domination of the work of making the invention down to the successful testing, selecting or rejecting.." Morse v. Porter, 155 USPQ 280, 283 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1965); Staehelin v. Secher, 24 USPQ2d 1513, 1522 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ("evidence of conception naming only one of the actual inventive entity inures to the benefit of and serves as evidence of conception by the complete inventive entity").
發明人可以從朋友、員工或顧問亦即專利工程師等各種來源取得建議，只要是發明人保持智慧性的主導以完成測試，選擇或排除，而且即使該建議被證實是解開問題的關鍵。
【2012/12/19更新】
2000年的判例：
已清楚說明，專利律師的任務是幫助發明人取得專利，不能對抗發明人，因此專利律師不能當作發明人。
Intellectual Property Owners Association | Sandra Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 00-1033:
" An attorney’s professional responsibility is to assist his or her client in defining her invention to obtain, if possible, a valid patent with maximum coverage. An attorney performing that role should not be a competitor of the client, asserting inventorship as a result of representing his client. Cf. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure app. R § 10.64 (7th ed.1998) ("Avoiding acquisition of interest in litigation or proceeding before the [Patent and Trademark] Office"). Thus, to assert that proper performance of the attorney’s role is a ground for invalidating the patent constitutes a failure to understand the proper role of a patent attorney. "
AS LONG AS THE INVENTOR MAINTAINS INTELLECTUAL DOMINATION OVER MAKING THE INVENTION, IDEAS, SUGGESTIONS, AND MATERIALS MAY BE ADOPTED FROM OTHERS
An inventor may consider and adopt ideas, suggestions and materials derived from many sources: a suggestion from an employee, a hired consultant or a friend even if the adopted material proves to be the key that unlocks the problem so long as the inventor "maintains intellectual domination of the work of making the invention down to the successful testing, selecting or rejecting.." Morse v. Porter, 155 USPQ 280, 283 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1965); Staehelin v. Secher, 24 USPQ2d 1513, 1522 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) ("evidence of conception naming only one of the actual inventive entity inures to the benefit of and serves as evidence of conception by the complete inventive entity").
發明人可以從朋友、員工或顧問亦即專利工程師等各種來源取得建議，只要是發明人保持智慧性的主導以完成測試，選擇或排除，而且即使該建議被證實是解開問題的關鍵。
【2012/12/19更新】
2000年的判例：
已清楚說明，專利律師的任務是幫助發明人取得專利，不能對抗發明人，因此專利律師不能當作發明人。
Intellectual Property Owners Association | Sandra Solomon v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. 00-1033:
" An attorney’s professional responsibility is to assist his or her client in defining her invention to obtain, if possible, a valid patent with maximum coverage. An attorney performing that role should not be a competitor of the client, asserting inventorship as a result of representing his client. Cf. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure app. R § 10.64 (7th ed.1998) ("Avoiding acquisition of interest in litigation or proceeding before the [Patent and Trademark] Office"). Thus, to assert that proper performance of the attorney’s role is a ground for invalidating the patent constitutes a failure to understand the proper role of a patent attorney. "
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)