2016年 01月 05日
◆米国 §103非自明性OAに対するRebuttal Arguments |
◆ KSRガイドライン by USPTO
【米国、非自明性、§103、KSR最高裁判例、ガイドライン】
A. Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results
B. Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results
C. Use of known technique to improve similar devices(methods, or products) in the same way
D. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results
E. “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectationof success
F. Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art
G. Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention
(1) …
◆実務
・振動装置を省略するように変更すると引用例の目的が達成されなくなると主張した例(@2015.10)
”if a vibration generator is omitted from XXX, the invention of D1 will no longer be suitable for its intended purpose. As noted in MPEP 2413.02(V), a prima facie showing of obviousness cannot me maintained 'if proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.'”
by manabu16779
| 2016-01-05 08:42
| 外国特許
|
Comments(0)