事由 專利申請A.權利範圍之獨立項為:
1.元件A之面績為元件B之8倍
2.元件A和元件B之距離為元件B邊長的3倍
審核官以其係一習知之技術為由 各以102 及 103 款以核駁之；
申請人之答辯如下:
大意為 其引証案中之圖示及說明書並無清楚的說明元件A&B之比例，其參考性不大
應不能予以為引証案予以核駁；
Xxxx fig.35, without any citation to any written description of these
figures. However , when a regerence does not disclose that the drawings are
yo scale and is silent as to dimensions , arguments based on measurement of
the drawing features are of little value. MPEP §2125.
It is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise
proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show partuclar size
if the specification is completely silent of the issue. Id. (citing
hockerson-Halberstady.inc………)
然後...就準了
一個不可能取得的專利 經過包裝 變為幾乎無人能逃過的上位怪物
(是我太菜 大驚小怪了嗎 XD)
--
1.元件A之面績為元件B之8倍
2.元件A和元件B之距離為元件B邊長的3倍
審核官以其係一習知之技術為由 各以102 及 103 款以核駁之；
申請人之答辯如下:
大意為 其引証案中之圖示及說明書並無清楚的說明元件A&B之比例，其參考性不大
應不能予以為引証案予以核駁；
Xxxx fig.35, without any citation to any written description of these
figures. However , when a regerence does not disclose that the drawings are
yo scale and is silent as to dimensions , arguments based on measurement of
the drawing features are of little value. MPEP §2125.
It is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise
proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show partuclar size
if the specification is completely silent of the issue. Id. (citing
hockerson-Halberstady.inc………)
然後...就準了
一個不可能取得的專利 經過包裝 變為幾乎無人能逃過的上位怪物
(是我太菜 大驚小怪了嗎 XD)
--
All Comments