撰寫專利說明書時，有人是先規劃出權利範圍，就像是寫大綱一般，完成後，可以順利地「貼回」實施內容中，一般還會加以修飾、補充實施例、描寫圖式內容，這樣，可以解決一般要求說明書應該要支持權利範圍的內容。就如美國專利審查基準2163.03所規範的基本說明書要求：
A description requirement issue can arise in a number of different circumstances where it must be determined whether the subject matter of a claim is supported in an application as filed. See MPEP § 2163 for examination guidelines pertaining to the written description requirement. While a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim which is not described sufficiently. Consequently, rejection of an original claim for lack of written description should be rare. Most typically, the issue will arise in the following circumstances: （適用於修改、後續案、優先權案、專利糾紛）
但是足夠的揭露並不只有「貼回去」而已，揭露內容應有技術內容與細節，並使得相關技術人員可以瞭解，並據以實施！
The specification, while providing literal support for the claimed limitations, does not describe the invention in a way that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention.
若說明書有上述揭露的問題，審查委員可以認為內容不明確而沒有進行檢索與告知前案，但仍提出核駁
參考MPEP 2173.06 Prior Art Rejection of Claim Rejected as Indefinite
All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. When the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible.
First, where the degree of uncertainty is not great, and where the claim is subject to more than one interpretation and at least one interpretation would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, an appropriate course of action would be for the examiner to enter two rejections: (A) a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; and (B) a rejection over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claims which renders the prior art applicable. See, e.g., Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important for the examiner to point out how the claim is being interpreted. Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.
本段提出，權利範圍所描述的所有內容都是用來考慮專利性的根據，當有技術元件被認為不清楚時，至少有兩個審查方案：
第一，當不清楚的程度並不是太大時，權利範圍可能有一個或兩個解釋，審查委員可針對這些解釋提出前案核駁，包括(a)不符112條第二段等不明確的核駁，與(b)根據解釋而提出的前案的技術核駁。
若是根據審查委員自己解釋的內容而提出的核駁，則應說明解釋為何？
第二，若是不明確的部份很多，導致混淆，使得無法提出適當的前案，則不適合提出具有引證案的核駁
如以下訊息，就是這個問題：
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言