關於被US103核駁時的答辯 - 專利

※ 引述《escaflone (大骨)》之銘言：
: ※ 引述《barley (專利討論版試閱中)》之銘言：
: 這裏的不同，原文是「Nonanalogous」
: 也就是說，兩個引證案要 analogous才能組合。
: 那什麼是analogous呢？請參照MPEP 2141.01
: The examiner must determine what is "analogous prior art" for the purpose
: of analyzing the obviousness of the subject matter at issue. "In order to
: rely on a reference as a basis for rejection of an applicant's invention,
: the reference must either be in the field of applicant's endeavor or, if
: not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the
: inventor was concerned."
: 可不單單只是中文裏頭的相同領域才能組合哦。
: 也就是說，把相同領域不同領域拿來對付臺灣的審查人員的時候，
: 如果被這個翻譯名詞給誤解的話，相當有機會進入下一回合的再審查。

e大可能誤會我的意思了
我想問的是美國的103 而非台灣的進步性
要解釋台灣的進步性 我想在審查基準中 2-3-22 (3)(d)中已經解釋的很明白

"相關先前技術與申請專利之發明通常必須屬於相同或相關的技術領域，兩者所欲
解決之問題相近，而有共通的技術特徵；即使兩者所屬之技術領域不相同或不相
關，只要兩者有共通的技術特徵，而能發揮申請專利之發明的功能時，亦得認定
為相關先前技術。"

我想用MPEP來解釋進步性是不太適合的

不過很有參考價值
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2141_01_a.htm

A reference is reasonably pertinent if, even though it may be in a different
field from that of the inventor's endeavor, it is one which, because of the
matter with which it deals, logically would have commended itself to an
inventor's attention in considering his problem.

where the general scope of a reference is outside the pertinent field of
endeavor, the reference may be considered analogous art if subject matter
disclosed therein is relevant to the particular problem with which the
inventor is involved.

大致上也是在說明以欲解決問題來判斷是否為相同領域

: 被35U.S.C.103打槍的時候，還有很多種ARGUE的方法。可參照MPEP2145
: 另外，這兩個網頁可以參考一下。
: http://www.marushima.net/notes/103.htm
: http://home.kimo.com.tw/ginacheng/prosecution_I.htm


--