103判例一問 - 專利

※ 引述《pbimg (= =+)》之銘言：
: It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose
: from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position to
: the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what
: reference fairly suggests to one skilled in the art.
: In re Wesslau, 53 C.C.P.A. 746, 353 F.2d 238, 241, 147 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 391,
: 393 (CCPA 1965); see also In re Mercier, 515 F.2d 1161, 1165-66, 185 U.S.P.Q.
: (BNA) 774, 778 (CCPA 1975).
: 這是有關 u.s.c. 103 條答辯時的判例，請問一下 有高人可以助為說明嗎?
: 叱謝

基本上就是在用103核駁進步性的時候，對於prior art的解讀不能斷章取義，
而應該以「對熟悉該項技藝者而言，該prior art的完整代表意義」作為核駁依據
以下為原文摘錄：

--
The fallacy of this reasoning is that no one of the references suggests such
a substitution, quite apart from the result which would be obtained thereby.
Such piecemeal reconstruction of the prior art patents in the light of
appellant's disclosure is contrary to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The ever present question in cases within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of the prior art at the
time the invention was made.

It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose
from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position,
to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what
such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.

--