獨立項具有新穎性且為非顯而易知，沒有必要審查其附屬項的新穎性與非顯而易知性，除非附屬項專利的有效時間比獨立項專利還晚，且有中間文件（附屬項的前案）需要考量。（唯一想到的情況是獨立項與附屬項分別主張不同的優先權）
If the subject-matter of an independent claim is new and non-obvious, there is no need to investigate the novelty and non-obviousness of the subject-matter of any claims dependent on it unless the subject-matter of a dependent claim has a later effective date than the independent claim and intermediate documents are to be considered (see F‑VI, 2.4.3).
如果產品項是新且非顯而易知，就沒有必要審查其他關於製造此產品的流程或使用此產品的專利範圍是否為新與非顯而易知。同理，如果流程不具備進步性，若有新穎與進步的產品，仍可獲准專利。
Similarly, if the subject-matter of a product claim is new and non-obvious there is no need to investigate the novelty and non-obviousness of the subject-matter of any claims for a process which inevitably results in the manufacture of that product or of any claims for a use of that product. In particular, analogy processes, i.e. processes which themselves would otherwise not involve an inventive step, are nevertheless patentable in so far as they provide a novel and inventive product (see T 119/82). However, where the product, process and use claims have different effective dates, a separate examination as to novelty and inventive step may still be necessary in view of intermediate documents.
案例T 119/82
系爭歐洲專利申請案：79301547.0
這件案例豎立了產品(product)為新穎與進步，則其相關流程(process)（如製程）也為可專利的基本概念；另一方面，在此概念下，若產品為舊的，或是在舊的結構下的新改變，其流程就不能僅包括必要或可以顯而易見的方法所推導的特徵。（編按，也就是運作在舊產品的流程還需要其他新穎且有進步特徵的步驟，才能取得專利）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言