優惠期 新法 VS 舊法 - 專利

我會加入討論主要是了板上其他板友,而不是你。

1. 先前主題：公開下位發明的上位技術資訊,申請範圍為下位發明內容
2. 102.a.1對應到的是102.b.1,
102.a.1意指"claimed invention"的新穎性要件,即判為先前技術的情況
102.b.1-a意指由inventor,joint inventor或another由發明人處取得"申請專利
之發明"所提供的揭露資訊(DISCLOSURES)可以排除,
即"哪些人(who)"所提供的揭露資訊(disclosure)可以排除

何況條文中的disclosure有說是any disclosure嗎?
法條上是 "A disclosure" not Any disclosure

102.b.1-b意指該揭露內容(the subject matter)由102.b.1-a明列的對象(那些人)所
提供的揭露資訊不落入先前技術的範圍
(identical subject matter approach)

3. 就一般claim的寫法,通常會把發明的上位概念寫入claim,
這種情況就會符合identical subject matter (claimed invention)
討論的情況是: 發明為A1, 公開A(未寫入claim)這種情況,
你這次說明和當初討論的主要內容不同


※ 引述《deathcustom (about to be couple)》之銘言：
: ※ 引述《VanDeLord (HelloWorld)》之銘言：
: : US 102(b)(1) & (b)(2)
: : Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 31 /
: : Thursday, February 14, 2013 / Rules and Regulations
: : comment#30 p11065~p11066
: : http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/FITF_Final_Guidelines_FR_2-14-2013.pdf
: : Comment30:
: : A number of comments, including comments from a number of universities and
: : university groups, opposed the Office's interpretation of the subparagraph
: : (B) provision of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) or 102(b)(2)
: : (the subparagraph (B) provision), requiring that the subject matter
: : previously publicly disclosed by the inventor be identical to the subject
: : matter of the disclosure to be disqualified under the subparagraph (B)
: : provision (identical subject matter approach).
: : The comments opposing the Office's
: : interpretation of the subparagraph (B) provision stated that:
: : ...blablabla...etc.
: 這裡討論的是35 U.S.C 102 (b) (1)(B)/(2)(B)
: 但是你忽略了(A)???
: 當我們這一串討論串再討論優惠期對於進步性的適用時，我覺得應該一併考慮(A)
: 102 (b)(1)(A)整個讀起來是
: A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed
: invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection
: (a)(1) if the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by
: another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from
: the inventor or a joint inventor
: 在所請求發明的有效申請日以前的一年以內的揭露(對應於(a)(1)定義者)不應該做為先前
: 技術，如果所述揭露係由發明人、共同發明人或由前述兩者處直接或間接得知所請發明主
: 體的第三人所做的
: 發明人在年初的ISSCC研討會中揭露甲一
: 並且在年中申請相關的專利，獨立項請求甲(甲一與甲二的上位概念)，附屬項請求了
: 甲一與甲二
: 則在年初的研討會揭露"依據102(b)(1)(A)"會被排除做為"先前技術的適格性"
: 當然如果有人在研討會後馬上去請了一個甲二的專利、或是去揭露一個甲二的變形
: 如果依據102(b)(1)(B)/(2)(B)
: 則"除非甲二這個概念是發明人提出來的，並且發明人同時提出甲是上位概念"，否則甲二
: 這個概念對於發明人想請的甲(獨立項)就是先前技術，並且因為甲二也會一併使甲一GG
: : Response:
: : As discussed previously, the starting point for construction of a statute is
: : the language of the statute itself.
: : Subparagraph (B) of each of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2) provides
: : that certain disclosures shall not be prior art if ''the subject matter
: : disclosed had, before such disclosure [or before such subject matter was
: : effectively filed under 102(a)(2)], been publicly disclosed by the inventor
: : or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed
: : directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.''
: : ...(略)
: : The single instance of the phrase ''the subject matter'' in subparagraph (B)
: : of each of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2) cannot reasonably be read as
: : concurrently describing two discrete subject matters. Therefore, the single
: : instance of the phrase ''the subject matter'' in subparagraph (B) of each of
: : AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) and 102(b)(2) cannot reasonably be interpreted as
: : including variations within its ambit.
: : AIA 35 U.S.C. 100 defines inventor and joint inventor or coinventor with
: : respect to the individual or individuals ''who invented or discovered the
: : subject matter of the invention, '' and defines "claimed invention'' as ''the
: : subject matter defined by a claim in a patent or an application for a patent.''
: : USPTO 這部分的guildline已經出了,很詳細,應該很好找。
: : -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
: : 今日看到智財局布告欄內容,讚聲其舉,公布USPTO對 102(b)(1)和102(b)(2)的解釋給大家
: : 參考。
: : 研擬放寬專利優惠期事由及期間公眾諮詢會議
: : http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=527343&ctNode=7127&mp=1

--

樂創意
飆創新
玩專利
超過癮

--