KSR之後，大家都怎麼答辯103 - 專利

不好意思
小弟最近接到一件103 OA 案件，
審查委員用一個案子，以103核駁本案
而且本案的claim有三個特徵a、b、c步驟，該案只有一個a
該案與本案達到的效果是相同的
在審查委員的oa內容裡面，審查委員也確實說，本案沒有揭露b、c特徵
但是，審查委員的論點是，假設b在該引證案成立時，該案中的某xx等效於c
我是認為這是相當不合理的oa，本來是想用prima facie case答辯

可是mpep似乎因為KSR改變很多

2006/8/5 -- 2143- basic requirement of prima facie case of obviousness
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness,
three basic criteria must be met.
First, there must be some suggestion or motivation,
either in the references themselves or in the knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art,
to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings.
Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success.
Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined)
must teach or suggest all the claim limitations.
The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination
and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found
in the prior art, not in applicant's disclosure.
簡單的說就是
(1)審查員所引用的先前技術文獻本身或熟習發明所屬技術領域
的一般技藝之人士的知識有教示、建議或有動機針對先前技術文
獻進行修改，或結合先前技術文獻的教示內容。
(2) 前述修改或結合必須伴隨合理地預期會成功
(reasonable expectation of success)。
(3) 兩篇或兩篇以上的先前技術文獻必須教示或建議權利要求的
所有限制條件。


2007/9/6 -- 2143- Examples of
Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness

(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to
yield predictable results;
(A)用已知的方法將前案的元件結合，產生可以預期的結果。

(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to
obtain predictable results;
(B)將一個已知的元件單純地用另以個元件替代，而獲得可以預期的結果。

(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices
(methods, or products) in the same way;
(C)用已知的技術以相同的方式去改善類似的裝置(方法或產品)。

(D) Applying a known technique to a known device
(method, or product) ready for improvement to yield
predictable results;
(D)用已知的技術去改善一個已知而且待改善的裝置(方法或產品)
而產生可預期的結果。

(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number
of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable
expectation of success;
(E)「顯而易見的嘗試」-從有限的幾個已經被指認出來而且是
可以預期的方法中加以選擇，而且可以合理的預期會得到成功的結果。

(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt
variations of it for use in either the same field or
a different one based on design incentives or other
market forces if the variations are predictable to
one of ordinary skill in the art;
(F)在某一領域中的已知成果，有可能會在相同或其他領域中
，基於它在設計上的優點或它所引起的市場需求，而產生
相類似的變化，如果這種變化對於該領域的習知技藝者來
說是可被預期的。

(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the
prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill
to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior
art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
(G)當習知技藝者依據某一先前技術所揭示的教導、建議或
動機，去修改另一先前技術或將幾個先前技術組合在一起，
從而得到專利範圍中所申請的發明。


上面7條，每條都有兩個example，並且大致上有四個步驟。
難道要針對這七條的每一個步驟進行答辯嗎？

另外，在uspto網站上
有提供教學
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/ksr/
ksr_3600_bm_slideset.ppt

裡面有提到幾個KSR之後的可以答辯的方向

Insufficient facts, or a persuasive showing by applicant
countering one or more findings of fact.

Secondary considerations

Claimed elements could not have been combined by known methods.

Claimed elements do not merely perform the function that each element
performs separately

不知道有沒有人用上述四點答辯103過？

另外，該文件中也有敘述到不可能成功的答辯方向
1. 只陳述oa沒有建立prima facie case
2. 只陳述pto所依賴的常識沒有文件證據的支持


--