先前討論：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/08/mpep-2143.html
MPEP 2143.01規範何謂修改先前技術的建議（Suggestion）與動機（Motivation）（Suggestion or Motivation To Modify the References）
當審查委員要以「缺乏進步性」或說「顯而易見」提出核駁意見時，應有核駁的邏輯，包括引用先前技術，證明本發明為先前技術單一或組合可以教示、建議，並證明先前技術之間具有組合達成本發明的動機。反過來想，就是對於進步性與非顯而易見性答辯的方向。
過往，包括現在，TSM（teaching, suggestion, motivation）仍為判斷進步性一個不錯的依據，即便有其他判例產生。也就是審查委員要證明權利範圍所記載的發明為顯而易見，除了用一些KSR留下的準則（「產生超出預期的結果」、「實踐可預期的變化」、「已知問題明顯有已知的解決方案」，可參閱：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/09/ksr-uspto.html（KSR判例的回顧-USPTO更新審查方針））判斷發明為OBVIOUS TO TRY以外，證明發明為修改先前技術而建議的或是具有其發明動機仍可能是一個比較客觀的判斷。
MPEP 2143.01
若發明為「顯而易知（obviousness）」是指發明為透過組合或是修改先前技術而可以簡單達成，包括前案的組合或修改可以教示（teaching）、建議（suggestion）或有動機達成（motivation）請求項所載發明。
當審查委員要判斷出先前技術的建議或是修改的動機，應該有以下考量，這也是專利申請人答辯時可以思考的答辯方向：
I. PRIOR ART SUGGESTION OF THE DESIRABILITY OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
先前技術是否建議本發明（反向思考就是證明先前技術與本發明不同技術領域，解決問題也不同，因此先前技術並未建議本發明；或是本發明與先前技術的差異明顯，使得先前技術並未建議本發明）？答辯時，應從習知技術整體的揭露實施內容來考量，這裡提示申請人欲證明先前技術的組合不恰當（improper），應證明：
(1)透過技術差異來證明先前技術未建議（suggest）本發明；
(2)透過先前技術的取向（desirability）證明先前技術反向教示（teach away）本發明。
II. WHERE THE TEACHINGS OF THE PRIOR ART CONFLICT, THE EXAMINER MUST WEIGH THE SUGGESTIVE POWER OF EACH REFERENCE
先前技術與發明教示有牴觸，審查委員應衡量每一個參考文獻所隱含的力道。也就是審查委員應考量先前技術的教示內容是否為本發明合理的前案，如果多件先前技術彼此的教示有差異，審查委員應衡量引用比重，判斷那一件為主要引證，那一件為輔助用的前案。
III. FACT THAT REFERENCES CAN BE COMBINED OR MODIFIED MAY NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE OBVIOUSNESS
先前技術可以被組合，或是被修正可能仍不足夠建立顯而易知的初步印象。如果證明發明領域相關技術人員可以根據先前技術預期本發明（透過改良、改變），則發明不具進步性。
IV. MERE STATEMENT THAT THE CLAIMED INVENTION IS WITHIN THE CAPABILITIES OF ONE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART IS NOT SUFFICIENT BY ITSELF TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE OBVIOUSNESS
若僅是聲明該發明領域一般技術人員能力可以達成並不足以建立顯而易知的初步印象。
V. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION CANNOT RENDER THE PRIOR ART UNSATISFACTORY FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE
所提議修改不能使得先前技術不滿足發明所欲達成的目的。如果先前技術的改變並未達到發明達成的目的，並未有任何動機執行此改變，也就是先前技術不適格。
VI. THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION CANNOT CHANGE THE PRINCIPLE OF OPERATION OF A REFERENCE
若審查意見提出先前技術經改變即可達成本發明，但所提議的修改不能改變先前技術原本的運作原理。
一些答辯範例（混合）（11/273,032, 10/432,492）：
*先討論技術差異，找到先前技術與本發明（請求項所載技術）的技術差異：
*甚至採用反向教示（teach away）的論述（提示審查委員應該考量先前技術的整體揭露內容，並點出先前技術與本發明不同的技術方向，技術效果的差異。"in light of the disclosures in the art that teach away from the invention..."；不過"Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments."）：
（補充）
MPEP 2141.02 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PRIOR ART AND CLAIMED INVENTION
VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Assoc., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) (Claims were directed to a process of producing a porous article by expanding shaped, unsintered, highly crystalline poly(tetrafluoroethylene) (PTFE) by stretching said PTFE at a 10% per second rate to more than five times the original length. The prior art teachings with regard to unsintered PTFE indicated the material does not respond to conventional plastics processing, and the material should be stretched slowly. A reference teaching rapid stretching of conventional plastic polypropylene with reduced crystallinity combined with a reference teaching stretching unsintered PTFE would not suggest rapid stretching of highly crystalline PTFE, in light of the disclosures in the art that teach away from the invention, i.e., that the conventional polypropylene should have reduced crystallinity before stretching, and that PTFE should be stretched slowly.).
（反之）However, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also MPEP § 2123.
MPEP 2123 REJECTION OVER PRIOR ART’S BROAD DISCLOSURE INSTEAD OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS
II. NONPREFERRED AND ALTERNATIVE EMBODIMENTS CONSTITUTE PRIOR ART
Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). “A known or obvious composition does not become patentable simply because it has been described as somewhat inferior to some other product for the same use.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 554, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (The invention was directed to an epoxy impregnated fiber-reinforced printed circuit material. The applied prior art reference taught a printed circuit material similar to that of the claims but impregnated with polyester-imide resin instead of epoxy. The reference, however, disclosed that epoxy was known for this use, but that epoxy impregnated circuit boards have “relatively acceptable dimensional stability” and “some degree of flexibility,” but are inferior to circuit boards impregnated with polyester-imide resins. The court upheld the rejection concluding that applicant’s argument that the reference teaches away from using epoxy was insufficient to overcome the rejection since “Gurley asserted no discovery beyond what was known in the art.” Id. at 554, 31 USPQ2d at 1132.). Furthermore, “[t]he prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
*面對有主要引證案（引證1）以及另一輔助的引證案（引證2），首先證明引證1並未教示、建議本案請求項所載發明，引證2則無法解決引證1所未教示的部分：
*面對組合兩件或以上的先前技術的核駁意見，先證明即便引用引證2，也無法教示引證1並未揭露的部分：
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言