MPEP 2100 譯文 - 專利

標題譯完了 開始對本文下手 (對啦 我是米蟲..)

參考了v大的意見. 小的會從2132開始住下. 一天一篇 約2個月該可譯完2100這部

期間在譯文上及TRIZ的學習上 希望各位高手出手從嚴指導

隨著時間的過去 實力應會有所提升

雖然以我現在的程度不太可能 但小的我譯完後 希望可以集束成小本 賺點小外快

用來請板上各位吃點好料 知恩圖報阿 XD

=========================
2132 35 U.S.C. 102(a)
=========================
35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to
patent.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented
or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before
the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or


35 U.S.C 102. 可專利性之條件;新穎性及專利權之喪失，無下列情形之一者，得獲得專
利：
(a) 在專利申請人發明及申請之前，已在本國為他人習知或使用，或在國內外已獲准專利
或在印刷刊物 上公開發表者，或

-----------------------------------------------------------
I. "KNOWN OR USED" 習知或使用

"Known or Used" Means Publicly Known or Used

“習知或使用”意即為大眾習知或使用

"The statutory language 'known or used by others in this country' (35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)), means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public."
Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The knowledge or use is accessible to the public if there has been no
deliberate attempt to keep it secret. W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983).

法律用語”於國內為他人知悉或使用(35 U.S.C. § 102(a))意即可為公眾可取得並所知
悉或使用，案例:" Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644
(Fed. Cir. 1986). 如未謹慎的嘗試保持其隱密性，則其知識或使用則被視為可為公眾所
取得者。案例:W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ
303 (Fed. Cir. 1983).


See MPEP § 2128 - § 2128.02 for case law concerning public accessibility of
publications.

關於公眾可取得性的判例可見MPEP § 2128 - § 2128.02

Another's Sale of a Product Made by a Secret Process Can Be a 35 U.S.C.
102(a) Public Use if the Process Can Be Determined by Examining the Product

他方販售利用一祕密製程製造的產品，若其製程係可透過產品的審視而被知悉，則其製程
得視為35 U.S.C. 102(a)之 為公眾所使用者。

"The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing
articles for commercial purposes is a public use." But a secret use of the
process coupled with the sale of the product does not result in a public use
of the process unless the public could learn the claimed process by examining
the product. Therefore, secret use of a process by another, even if the
product is commercially sold, cannot result in a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
102(a) if an examination of the product would not reveal the process. Id.

其對一已列入權利項製程之非祕密使用 – 在製造用品以供商業販售中之普遍做法得視為
為公眾所使用者。除非公眾可以透過對產品的審視而得知已列入權利項之製程，否則和祕
密製程偶合之商品銷售係不被視為公眾之使用。如並不能透過該產品得知其產程，即使該
產品被商業的販售，其製程被他方祕密的使用並不能據35U.S.C. 102(a) 以核駁之。

II. "IN THIS COUNTRY"

“於本國內”

Only Knowledge or Use in the U.S. Can Be Used in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Rejection

只有於美國內知悉或使用方能被U.S.C 102(a) 據以核駁。

The knowledge or use relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection must be
knowledge or use "in this country." Prior knowledge or use which is not
present in the United States, even if widespread in a foreign country, cannot
be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d
321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958). Note that the changes made to 35 U.S.C. 104 by
NAFTA (Public Law 103-182) and Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law
103-465) do not modify the meaning of "in this country" as used in 35 U.S.C.
102(a) and thus "in this country" still means in the United States for
purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejections.

必需為於本國內之知悉或使用，方可據35 U.S.C 102(a)中之知悉或使以核駁之。即使於
國外廣為散佈，只要其非於美國內所知悉或使用，則不得據35 U.S. 102(a) 為核駁之基
礎。案例: In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958)。另外，需注意
35 U.S. 104之改變係因為NAFTA (Public Law 103-182)及Uruguay Round Agreements
Act (Public Law 103-465) ，其二未修正同於35 U.S.C. 102(a)中出現之”於本國內”
一詞之意，故據35 U.S.C. 102(a)為由之核駁中，“於本國內”之意仍指於美國內。

III. "BY OTHERS" “被他眾”

"Others" Means Any Combination of Authors or Inventors Different Than the
Inventive Entity

“他眾”是指任何著作人或發明人之結合，和發明個體不同。

The term "others" in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different
from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be
"by others." This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior
art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge
and use. Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) "would negate the one
year [grace] period afforded under § 102(b)." In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215
USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).

在35 U.S.C. 102(a)中，“他眾”一詞代表任何個體，其係與發明個體相異者。其個體只
需要其中一人相異則可為"被他眾"。這在任何種類的 可於35 U.S.C. 102(a)下之公開刊
物及公眾所知悉及使用，及被列為引用資料之先前技藝及均適用。根據§ 102(b)，任何
其他35 U.S.C. 102(a)之闡明不能否定其給予的一年優 _ 期。" In re Katz, 687 F.2d
450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).

IV. "PATENTED IN THIS OR A FOREIGN COUNTRY"

在本國及異國之已取得之專利。

See MPEP § 2126 for information on the use of secret patents as prior art.
利用祕密專利作為先前技藝之資料，見MPEP § 2126 。


======================================================
2132.01 Publications as 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Prior Art
======================================================
如 35 U.S.C. 102(a) 所述之先前技藝

35 U.S.C. 102(a) PRIMA FACIE CASE IS ESTABLISHED IF REFERENCE PUBLICATION IS
"BY OTHERS"

35U.S.C 102(a) 若引證資料是”被他眾” 所發佈，則初步現證係被確立。

A prima facie case is made out under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) if, within 1 year of
the filing date, the invention, or an obvious variant thereof, is described
in a "printed publication" whose authorship differs in any way from the
inventive entity unless it is stated within the publication itself that the
publication is describing the applicant's work. In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215
USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP § 2128 for case law on what constitutes a
"printed publication." Note that when the reference is a U.S. patent
published within the year prior to the application filing date, a 35 U.S.C.
102(e) rejection should be made. See MPEP § 2136 - § 2136.05 for case law
dealing with 102(e).

如由申請日起一年內，在印刷刊物中敍有該發明或其顯而易見之相異形態，而且文章之著
作者係與發明之個體相異者(無論其任何形態的相異)，除非其刊物中有註明其刊物是敍述
申請人之成果，否則根據35 U.S.C. 102(a)，初步現證成立，案例，In re Katz, 687
F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).”印刷刊物組成之判例，見MPEP § 2128 。注意
，當其引證資料是一已公開之美國專利，並其於申請日前一年內公開，基於35 U.S.C.
102(e)，其將被據以核駁。102(e)之判例，見MPEP § 2136 - § 2136.05。
APPLICANT CAN REBUT PRIMA FACIE CASE BY SHOWING REFERENCE'S DISCLOSURE WAS
DERIVED FROM APPLICANT'S OWN WORK
當申請人表達對引證資料的揭露係由申請人之己方之作品而衍生的，申請人得據以對初步
現證提出反證。

Applicant's disclosure of his or her own work within the year before the
application filing date cannot be used against him or her under 35 U.S.C.
102(a). In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) (discussed below).
Therefore, where the applicant is one of the co-authors of a publication
cited against his or her application, the publication may be removed as a
reference by the filing of affidavits made out by the other authors
establishing that the relevant portions of the publication originated with,
or were obtained from, applicant. Such affidavits are called disclaiming
affidavits. Ex parte Hirschler, 110 USPQ 384 (Bd. App. 1952). The rejection
can also be overcome by submission of a specific declaration by the applicant
establishing that the article is describing applicant's own work. In re Katz,
687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982). However, if there is evidence that the
co-author has refused to disclaim inventorship and believes himself or
herself to be an inventor, applicant's affidavit will not be enough to
establish that applicant is the sole inventor and the rejection will stand.
Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1982) (discussed below).
It is also possible to overcome the rejection by adding the coauthors as
inventors to the application if the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 116, third
paragraph are met. In re Searles, 422 F.2d 431, 164 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1970).

申請人在申請日前一年內對他/她已方之作品之揭露不得引用35 U.S.C. 102(a)對抗之。
In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) (在以下會作討論。)因此，當申
請人為 被引作其申請案之對抗刊物 之共同創作人之一時，而當其他創作人以宣誓書確立
其刊物相對比例之部份係由申請人所原創者或從申請人所取得者，其刊物得從引證資料中
移除。而其宣誓書係名為”放棄權利誓約”。 Ex parte Hirschler, 110 USPQ 384
(Bd. App. 1952)。另外，申請人亦可遞呈一明確的聲明以確立其文章實為敍述己方之創
作，亦可據而克服其核駁。In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)。然
而，若有證據顯示其共同著作人已拒絶放棄其發明人之資格及相信其己方方為發明人，則
申請人之宣誓不足以確立其為獨立發明人，故其核駁會維持原狀。Ex parte Kroger,
219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1982)（將於以下部份討論）。若合乎35 U.S.C.
116, third paragraph之要求，透過加入其共同著作人為其申請案之發明人，其核駁亦可
能被克服。In re Searles, 422 F.2d 431, 164 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1970).

In In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982), Katz stated in a
declaration that the coauthors of the publication, Chiorazzi and Eshhar,
"were students working under the direction and supervision of the inventor,
Dr. David H. Katz." The court held that this declaration, in combination with
the fact that the publication was a research paper, was enough to establish
Katz as the sole inventor and that the work described in the publication was
his own. In research papers, students involved only with assay and testing
are normally listed as coauthors but are not considered co-inventors.

在Katz 案中( In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982),)，Katz 在一聲
明中指出，該刊物的同共著作人，Chiorazzi 及 Eshhar為Dr. David H. Katz之學生，其
二人在Katz 手下工作並接受其指導及監管。法院認為此聲明在加入考量了以下事實後，
係足以確認Katz為一獨立發明人，以及刊物中之作品為出自其已方。在研究論文的狀況中
，學生係只涉及化驗及測試，其通常會被名列為同共著作人，但不會將其考慮為一共同發
明人。

In Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1982), Kroger,
Knaster and others were listed as authors on an article on photovoltaic power
generation. The article was used to reject the claims of an application
listing Kroger and Rod as inventors. Kroger and Rod submitted affidavits
declaring themselves to be the inventors. The affidavits also stated that
Knaster merely carried out assignments and worked under the supervision and
direction of Kroger. The Board stated that if this were the only evidence in
the case, it would be established, under In re Katz, that Kroger and Rod were
the only inventors. However, in this case, there was evidence that Knaster
had refused to sign an affidavit disclaiming inventorship and Knaster had
introduced evidence into the case in the form of a letter to the PTO in which
he alleged that he was a co-inventor. The Board held that the evidence had
not been fully developed enough to overcome the rejection. Note that the
rejection had been made under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) but the Board treated the
issue the same as if it had arisen under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). See also case law
dealing with overcoming 102(e) rejections as presented in MPEP § 2136.05.
Many of the issues are the same.

在Kroger 案中，In Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.
1982), Kroger, Knaster和其他人在一篇光電能產生之文章係名列著作人。其文章係被用
以核駁一以Kroger 和Rod為發明人之申請案之權利項。Kroger 和Rod提交一宣誓書以宣稱
他們為發明人。其宣誓書中亦指出Knaster不過是被指示以執行而已，且其係於Kroger 下
工作並且受到其指導及監督。庭上指出，要是其為唯一的證據的話，在Katz案中，
Kroger 和Rod為唯一發明人之事應已被確立。然而，於此案中，其有證據指出Knaster 曾
拒絶簽處誓約以放棄其發明人之資格，及Knaster已利用書信的方式向PTO指出此案之證據
，其信中主張其已為一共同發明人。庭上指出其證據(指Kroger 和Rod提交之宣誓書)係不
足 以克服其核駁。注意其核駁係基於35 U.S.C 102(f)所作，但庭上認為其狀況應否同時
適用35 U.S.C 102(a)。觀如MPEP § 2136.05.中出現，所克服102(e)核駁的判例，其中
數項內容為相同者。
A 37 CFR 1.131 AFFIDAVIT CAN BE USED TO OVERCOME A 35 U.S.C. 102(a) REJECTION
一據37 CFR 1.131提出的宣誓書可被利用以克服35 U.S.C. 102(a)之核駁。

When the reference is not a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), (c), or
(d), applicant can overcome the rejection by swearing back of the reference
through the submission of an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131. In re Foster, 343
F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965). If the reference is disclosing
applicant's own work as derived from him or her, applicant may submit either
a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit to antedate the reference or a 37 CFR 1.132
affidavit to show derivation of the reference subject matter from applicant
and invention by applicant. In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 161 USPQ 294 (CCPA
1969). See MPEP § 715 for more information on when an affidavit under 37 CFR
1.131 can be used to overcome a reference and what evidence is required.

當其引證資料非為35 U.S.C. 102(b), (c), or (d),之法規所禁止時，申請人能夠基於
37 CFR 1.131提交一宣誓書並宣誓以溯往並克服對其刊物之核駁。In re Foster, 343
F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965).若其引證資料揭露了申請人之作品為源自他己，
則申請人得基於37 CFR 1.131或 37 CFR 1.132以提交宣誓書以讓專利申請日往前移。

===========================以上=================================

請各前輩給評指導　感謝

--
聰明人不會因為沒受教育而變笨，
笨人亦不會因受教育而變聰明。
豪語錄 1:1

--