作者ides13 (鬼)
看板Patent
标题Re: [问题] 美国案的问题
时间Thu Dec 20 17:04:42 2012
102(f)的重点在於，谁才是发明人。即使他的发明最後被证实为不具新颖性。
102(f)与日期无关，重点在於“出处及来源”。
只要abc的发明，是原发明人自己想出来的，即便最後被证实abc为已知的，
那麽abc也还是abcd的发明人，他们对abcd还是有智能性的贡献，要克服习知参考文献
，仅需要一份宣誓书，即足够克服102(f)的拒绝理由。
MPEP 2317
“[a] prior art reference that is not a statutory bar may be overcome by two
generally recognized methods”: an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131, or an
affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 “showing that the relevant disclosure is a
description of the applicant’s own work.”
35 U.S.C. 102(f) “does not require an inquiry into the relative dates of a
reference and the application”, and therefore may be applicable where
subsections (a) and (e) are not available for references.
The party or parties executing an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 are
presumed to be the inventors. Driscoll v. Cebalo, 5 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (Bd.
Pat. Inter. 1982); In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA
1982)
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 220.134.238.126