（2009年7月1日起）新修法之後，最終核駁之後的補正則放寬許多，可以自由限縮範圍，限制則有：
- 為了明確、新增與刪除範圍的限縮修正
- 校正錯誤
- 明確模糊的描述
- 刪除認為是新增的事物（new matter）
Ron
2009年7月28日 星期二
韓國最終核駁後修正限制放寬
之前，當韓國專利局發出最終核駁之後的補正程序，申請人能夠提出的修正限制十分嚴格！修正可能會產生實質的改變，除非提出訴願，並伴隨著修正
（2009年7月1日起）新修法之後，最終核駁之後的補正則放寬許多，可以自由限縮範圍，限制則有：
Ron
（2009年7月1日起）新修法之後，最終核駁之後的補正則放寬許多，可以自由限縮範圍，限制則有：
Ron
韓國專利「分割」申請案改變
以往，修法前，申請人僅能於特定期限內提出「分割申請案（divisional application）」，如收到先前核駁（preliminary rejection）後，或是提出訴願後30日內，所以不太可能在核駁後、訴願前提出分割案。
下圖顯示可提出分割案的時間有，對先前核駁回應前可提出分割案；提出訴願後，並到先前再審查之間可提出分割案；訴願後維持原判（再審核駁）之後，亦可提出分割案：
修法之後，也就是2009年7月1日之後，在收到核駁決定，並請求再審查前，可提出分割案；另外，收到「再審查」（新法）最終核駁後，提出訴願前，可提出分割案！
在新修法中，有個特色，也就是收到核駁決定，或是最終核駁後，如果有任何可核准的範圍，可針對可核准範圍提出分割案，以利獲准專利，其餘被核駁範圍則可繼續答辯或修正。
資料參考：Kim, Hong & Assoicates
Ron
（以上有些名詞，應注意意義，可能定義有所不同）
下圖顯示可提出分割案的時間有，對先前核駁回應前可提出分割案；提出訴願後，並到先前再審查之間可提出分割案；訴願後維持原判（再審核駁）之後，亦可提出分割案：
修法之後，也就是2009年7月1日之後，在收到核駁決定，並請求再審查前，可提出分割案；另外，收到「再審查」（新法）最終核駁後，提出訴願前，可提出分割案！
在新修法中，有個特色，也就是收到核駁決定，或是最終核駁後，如果有任何可核准的範圍，可針對可核准範圍提出分割案，以利獲准專利，其餘被核駁範圍則可繼續答辯或修正。
資料參考：Kim, Hong & Assoicates
Ron
（以上有些名詞，應注意意義，可能定義有所不同）
韓國專利審查新增「再審」程序
可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/200971.html
韓國於2009年7月1日起實施「再審（Re-Examination）」制度，也就是有別於以往在核駁決定（decision of rejection）後，申請人僅能選擇訴願（Appeal）產生較高費用的問題，韓國專利局引入「再審」制度，讓申請人可以提出再審查，可伴隨答辯、修改說明書/權利範圍與圖式。申請人在收到核駁決定後，可選擇訴願，或是此再審制度。
由下圖舊制可知，核駁決定後（核駁決定前會至少有一次先前審查（preliminary rejection）），30日內可提出訴願，提出訴願後30日內可提出修正，並進行先前再審（prior re-examination），之後再進入再審，由資深審查官執行
下圖為新制，收到核駁決定後，可於30日內提出再審查（或是直接提出訴願），之後若維持原判，則再進入訴願
新制中，再審的基本費（規費，不含權利項數）用約100000韓元，而訴願基本費用約需150000韓元，新制中應可省點錢！
資料參考：Kim, Hong & Assoicates
Ron
韓國於2009年7月1日起實施「再審（Re-Examination）」制度，也就是有別於以往在核駁決定（decision of rejection）後，申請人僅能選擇訴願（Appeal）產生較高費用的問題，韓國專利局引入「再審」制度，讓申請人可以提出再審查，可伴隨答辯、修改說明書/權利範圍與圖式。申請人在收到核駁決定後，可選擇訴願，或是此再審制度。
由下圖舊制可知，核駁決定後（核駁決定前會至少有一次先前審查（preliminary rejection）），30日內可提出訴願，提出訴願後30日內可提出修正，並進行先前再審（prior re-examination），之後再進入再審，由資深審查官執行
下圖為新制，收到核駁決定後，可於30日內提出再審查（或是直接提出訴願），之後若維持原判，則再進入訴願
新制中，再審的基本費（規費，不含權利項數）用約100000韓元，而訴願基本費用約需150000韓元，新制中應可省點錢！
資料參考：Kim, Hong & Assoicates
Ron
2009年7月23日 星期四
美國專利法第121條（分割案）
§121. Divisional applications
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 of this title [35 USC 120] it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Director may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
美國專利法第121條規範了分割申請案
因為在一個專利申請案中只能保護一個發明，若同時載有兩個或以上獨立或可區隔的發明，則會被要求分割處理，比如發出Restriction/Elections，要求申請人限制（restriction）保護範圍於其中之一發明。
而其他發明則可以分割案申請案處理，並應符合美國專利法第120條中「先前申請案與後續案」的規定，包括說明書揭露應符合112規定、若先前申請案未被專利、拋棄或是程序終結，則有前案申請日的好處等。
經過分割案處理的申請案並不能互相引用為核駁引證案。
另外，經要求分割時，不能質疑審查委員可能錯誤判斷限制（restriction）的要求。
Sec. 120. - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 of this title, which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the payment of a surcharge, to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section
Ron
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 of this title [35 USC 120] it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Director may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
美國專利法第121條規範了分割申請案
因為在一個專利申請案中只能保護一個發明，若同時載有兩個或以上獨立或可區隔的發明，則會被要求分割處理，比如發出Restriction/Elections，要求申請人限制（restriction）保護範圍於其中之一發明。
而其他發明則可以分割案申請案處理，並應符合美國專利法第120條中「先前申請案與後續案」的規定，包括說明書揭露應符合112規定、若先前申請案未被專利、拋棄或是程序終結，則有前案申請日的好處等。
經過分割案處理的申請案並不能互相引用為核駁引證案。
另外，經要求分割時，不能質疑審查委員可能錯誤判斷限制（restriction）的要求。
Sec. 120. - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 of this title, which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the payment of a surcharge, to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section
Ron
2009年7月21日 星期二
字面上的支持還不夠！
說明書字面上的支持還不夠！還可能因為內容不足，而不用前案就提出核駁！
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
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
2009年7月16日 星期四
Michael Jackson 的簽名
想要Michael Jackson的簽名，很難拿到，卻是可以看到
從他透過Triumph公司所申請的舞鞋專利即可看到本人的簽名
可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/07/michael-jackson.html
這案的歷史還透露出，最初申請時，沒有簽名，等到USPTO進行形式審查（關係到申請日有沒有效）發出通知漏掉簽名，Michael才簽上名的！
最近USPTO也舉辦Michael Jackson的專利、商標與其應用的展覽，給民眾機會教育，重視智慧財產權！
下次找找周杰倫的專利或是商標！
Ron
2009年7月15日 星期三
韓國無效制度
韓國無效制度
資料參考：NEIT、KIPO
有關韓國專利的法律程序：
當申請人收到韓國專利局的申請案最終核駁通知，或是有人欲「無效」韓國專利（同樣包括新型、商標、設計專利），包括對修正提出異議、撤銷商標等，可提出複審程序！
專利局此時將指派三位IPT（Intellectual Property Tribunal）的評審委員進行審理
審理內容包括形式審查（formality），如果是無效案，將此訴訟請求轉給專利權人，若是專利侵害案，則轉給侵權被告，由對方提出回應，若有回應，則再轉給原告
Inter parte Case
此時，評審委員針對兩造提出的意見進行審理，並做出決定。若兩造有不服決定的，可於30日內在專利法庭（patent court）提出上訴（Appeal），同理，若再不服專利法庭的決定，則可在最高法院（supreme court）提出上訴（14天內）
下圖由KIPO所截下的流程圖（Inter Parte Cases）
可知，形式符合要求還頗重要，有修正機會，且在此複審制度下，兩造皆有機會表達意見
Ex Parte Case
以下圖來看，在此單方面的複審程序中，審理的決定並不會交由被告回覆意見，而由IPT指派法官後，即進行審理，並做出決定。期間，專利權人可提出修正，修正範圍包括(1)限縮範圍；(2)校正錯誤；(3)釐清不明確的內容
Ron
資料參考：NEIT、KIPO
有關韓國專利的法律程序：
當申請人收到韓國專利局的申請案最終核駁通知，或是有人欲「無效」韓國專利（同樣包括新型、商標、設計專利），包括對修正提出異議、撤銷商標等，可提出複審程序！
專利局此時將指派三位IPT（Intellectual Property Tribunal）的評審委員進行審理
審理內容包括形式審查（formality），如果是無效案，將此訴訟請求轉給專利權人，若是專利侵害案，則轉給侵權被告，由對方提出回應，若有回應，則再轉給原告
Inter parte Case
此時，評審委員針對兩造提出的意見進行審理，並做出決定。若兩造有不服決定的，可於30日內在專利法庭（patent court）提出上訴（Appeal），同理，若再不服專利法庭的決定，則可在最高法院（supreme court）提出上訴（14天內）
下圖由KIPO所截下的流程圖（Inter Parte Cases）
可知，形式符合要求還頗重要，有修正機會，且在此複審制度下，兩造皆有機會表達意見
Ex Parte Case
以下圖來看，在此單方面的複審程序中，審理的決定並不會交由被告回覆意見，而由IPT指派法官後，即進行審理，並做出決定。期間，專利權人可提出修正，修正範圍包括(1)限縮範圍；(2)校正錯誤；(3)釐清不明確的內容
Ron
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)