※ 引述《escaflone (大骨)》之铭言： : ※ 引述《barley (专利讨论版试阅中)》之铭言： : 这里的不同，原文是「Nonanalogous」 : 也就是说，两个引证案要 analogous才能组合。 : 那什麽是analogous呢？请参照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." : 可不单单只是中文里头的相同领域才能组合哦。 : 也就是说，把相同领域不同领域拿来对付台湾的审查人员的时候， : 如果被这个翻译名词给误解的话，相当有机会进入下一回合的再审查。 e大可能误会我的意思了 我想问的是美国的103 而非台湾的进步性 要解释台湾的进步性 我想在审查基准中 2-3-22 (3)(d)中已经解释的很明白 "相关先前技术与申请专利之发明通常必须属於相同或相关的技术领域，两者所欲 解决之问题相近，而有共通的技术特徵；即使两者所属之技术领域不相同或不相 关，只要两者有共通的技术特徵，而能发挥申请专利之发明的功能时，亦得认定 为相关先前技术。" 我想用MPEP来解释进步性是不太适合的 不过很有参考价值 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. 大致上也是在说明以欲解决问题来判断是否为相同领域 : 被35U.S.C.103打枪的时候，还有很多种ARGUE的方法。可参照MPEP2145 : 另外，这两个网页可以参考一下。 : http://www.marushima.net/notes/103.htm : http://home.kimo.com.tw/ginacheng/prosecution_I.htm --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.62.74.104