不好意思 小弟最近接到一件103 OA 案件， 审查委员用一个案子，以103核驳本案 而且本案的claim有三个特徵a、b、c步骤，该案只有一个a 该案与本案达到的效果是相同的 在审查委员的oa内容里面，审查委员也确实说，本案没有揭露b、c特徵 但是，审查委员的论点是，假设b在该引证案成立时，该案中的某xx等效於c 我是认为这是相当不合理的oa，本来是想用prima facie case答辩 可是mpep似乎因为KSR改变很多 2006/8/5 -- 2143- basic requirement of prima facie case of obviousness To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, three basic criteria must be met. First, there must be some suggestion or motivation, either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the reference or to combine reference teachings. Second, there must be a reasonable expectation of success. Finally, the prior art reference (or references when combined) must teach or suggest all the claim limitations. The teaching or suggestion to make the claimed combination and the reasonable expectation of success must both be found in the prior art, not in applicant's disclosure. 简单的说就是 (1)审查员所引用的先前技术文献本身或熟习发明所属技术领域 的一般技艺之人士的知识有教示、建议或有动机针对先前技术文 献进行修改，或结合先前技术文献的教示内容。 (2) 前述修改或结合必须伴随合理地预期会成功 (reasonable expectation of success)。 (3) 两篇或两篇以上的先前技术文献必须教示或建议权利要求的 所有限制条件。 2007/9/6 -- 2143- Examples of Basic Requirements of a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (A)用已知的方法将前案的元件结合，产生可以预期的结果。 (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (B)将一个已知的元件单纯地用另以个元件替代，而获得可以预期的结果。 (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (C)用已知的技术以相同的方式去改善类似的装置(方法或产品)。 (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (D)用已知的技术去改善一个已知而且待改善的装置(方法或产品) 而产生可预期的结果。 (E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (E)「显而易见的尝试」-从有限的几个已经被指认出来而且是 可以预期的方法中加以选择，而且可以合理的预期会得到成功的结果。 (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (F)在某一领域中的已知成果，有可能会在相同或其他领域中 ，基於它在设计上的优点或它所引起的市场需求，而产生 相类似的变化，如果这种变化对於该领域的习知技艺者来 说是可被预期的。 (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. (G)当习知技艺者依据某一先前技术所揭示的教导、建议或 动机，去修改另一先前技术或将几个先前技术组合在一起， 从而得到专利范围中所申请的发明。 上面7条，每条都有两个example，并且大致上有四个步骤。 难道要针对这七条的每一个步骤进行答辩吗？ 另外，在uspto网站上 有提供教学 http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/ksr/ ksr_3600_bm_slideset.ppt 里面有提到几个KSR之後的可以答辩的方向 Insufficient facts, or a persuasive showing by applicant countering one or more findings of fact. Secondary considerations Claimed elements could not have been combined by known methods. Claimed elements do not merely perform the function that each element performs separately 不知道有没有人用上述四点答辩103过？ 另外，该文件中也有叙述到不可能成功的答辩方向 1. 只陈述oa没有建立prima facie case 2. 只陈述pto所依赖的常识没有文件证据的支持 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.57.141.100