A statement by an applicant in the specification or made during prosecution identifying the work of another as “prior art” is an admission which can be relied upon for both anticipation and obviousness determinations, regardless of whether the admitted prior art would otherwise qualify as prior art under the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. 102. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1570, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1063 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Where the admitted prior art anticipates the claim but does not qualify as prior art under any of the paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102, the claim may be rejected as being anticipated by the admitted prior art without citing to 35 U.S.C. 102.
（第一段落就說明（算是＂嚴厲地聲明＂）申請人在＂專利說明書＂或是＂審查過程＂中指出＂PRIOR ART（先前技術）＂的聲明，不論所指出的先前技術是否夠格成為先前技術，就是承認可以用來當作新穎性或進步性的判斷的先前技術。）
However, even if labeled as “prior art,” the work of the same inventive entity may not be considered prior art against the claims unless it falls under one of the statutory categories. Id.; see also Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., 748 F.2d 645, 650, 223 USPQ 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (“[W]here the inventor continues to improve upon his own work product, his foundational work product should not, without a statutory basis, be treated as prior art solely because he admits knowledge of his own work. It is common sense that an inventor, regardless of an admission, has knowledge of his own work.”).
（然而，即便標示＂prior art＂，如果是相同實體的先前發明，而本發明是接續改良，如果是發明人承認的，先前的工作不會＂單獨／solely＂作為先前技術。）
Consequently, the examiner must determine whether the subject matter identified as “prior art” is the inventor’s own work, or the work of another. In the absence of another credible explanation, examiners should treat such subject matter as the work of another.
（結果是，審查委員需要判斷是否有發明標的被發明人指為自己或是他人的先前技術，如果缺少可信任的解釋，就會被視為他人先前技術。）
II. DISCUSSION OF PRIOR ART IN SPECIFICATIONWhere the specification identifies work done by another as “prior art,” the subject matter so identified is treated as admitted prior art. In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566, 571, 184 USPQ 607, 611 (CCPA 1975) (holding applicant’s labeling of two figures in the application drawings as “prior art” to be an admission that what was pictured was prior art relative to the claimed improvement).
（當在專利說明書中指名他人完成的先前技術，就是自己承認的先前技術，根據案例In re Nomiya中，CCPA裁定申請人標記了兩張圖為＂PRIOR ART＂，也就是承認其中繪製的圖相對本案為先前技術。）
III. JEPSON CLAIMSDrafting a claim in Jepson format (i.e., the format described in 37 CFR 1.75(e); see MPEP § 608.01(m)) is taken as an implied admission that the subject matter of the preamble is the prior art work of another. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 534 (CCPA 1982) (holding preamble of Jepson-type claim to be admitted prior art where applicant’s specification credited another as the inventor of the subject matter of the preamble). However, this implication may be overcome where applicant gives another credible reason for drafting the claim in Jepson format. In re Ehrreich, 590 F.2d 902, 909-910, 200 USPQ 504, 510 (CCPA 1979) (holding preamble not to be admitted prior art where applicant explained that the Jepson format was used to avoid a double patenting rejection in a co-pending application and the examiner cited no art showing the subject matter of the preamble). Moreover, where the preamble of a Jepson claim describes the inventor’s own work, such may not be used against the claims. Reading & Bates Construction Co. v. Baker Energy Resources Corp., 748 F.2d 645, 650, 223 USPQ 1168, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ehrreich, 590 F.2d at 909-910, 200 USPQ at 510.
（當申請專利範圍以Jepson寫法（其改良在於～）撰寫時，隱含承認前言部分的內容是他人完成的先前技術。但是，若申請人可以提出其他可信的以此寫法撰寫專利範圍的理由，此隱含承認的部分可以被克服。這裡提到前例In re Ehrreich，申請人解釋使用Jepson寫法是要迴避重複專利核駁，前言部分就不會是自己承認的先前技術。同理，當Jepson寫法的前言部分是發明人自己的先前技術，就不會用來駁回申請專利範圍描述的發明。）
IV. INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (IDS)Mere listing of a reference in an information disclosure statement is not taken as an admission that the reference is prior art against the claims. Riverwood Int’l Corp. v. R.A. Jones & Co., 324 F.3d 1346, 1354-55, 66 USPQ2d 1331, 1337-38 (Fed Cir. 2003) (listing of the inventor’s own prior patent in an IDS does not make it available as prior art absent a statutory basis); see also 37 CFR 1.97(h) (“The filing of an information disclosure statement shall not be construed to be an admission that the information cited in the statement is, or is considered to be, material to patentability as defined in § 1.56(b).”).
（列舉在IDS中的參考文獻不會視為承認的先前技術來駁回專利。）
（USPTO：https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2129.html）
沒有留言:
張貼留言