法院的判決意旨是以較彈性的方法判斷設計顯而易見性，而不要採用基本相同的primary reference、與主要引證案很相關的secondary reference...的引證規則，但在侵權或是專利性判斷時仍需要找到適合的"主要"引證案作為評價顯而易見性的證據。
In the instant case individual features seem to have been selected from different of the reference patents and compared with features shown in appellant's drawings. In other words, it seems to have been held that by selecting features taken from five different patents, that is, one feature from one patent, another from another, etc., a device might be considered which would so closely resemble the drawings of appellant that his design would not be patentable over such possible construction.
We feel constrained to disagree with the concurring conclusions reached by the tribunals of the Patent Office.
In considering patentability of a proposed design the appearance of the design must be viewed as a whole, as shown by the drawing, or drawings, and compared with something in existence — not with something that might be brought into existence by selecting individual features from prior art and combining them, particularly where combining them would require modification of every individual feature, as would be required here.
沒有留言:
張貼留言