作者deathcustom (1982-2013 END)
看板Patent
标题Re: [问题] 美国专利Claim写法的要求
时间Tue Apr 29 22:38:27 2014
※ 引述《conner (conner)》之铭言：
听朋友说美国专利的Claim项一定要有说明书中对应的图示可以支持
这是真的吗?
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 114.41.100.42
※ 文章网址: http://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Patent/M.1398778933.A.CC8.html
1F：推 piglauhk:哪一国不用。。 04/29 21:57
2F：→ conner:台湾也要吗? 说明书有写就可以还是一定要图式有支持? 04/29 22:03
3F：→ fermion:不一定,但大部份情况是要有图支持. 04/29 22:04
37 CFR 1.83: Content of Drawing
(a)
The drawing in a nonprovisional application
must show every feature of
the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features
disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed
illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the
invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a
graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled
rectangular box). In addition, tables and sequence listings that are
included in the specification are, except for applications filed under
35 U.S.C. 371, not permitted to be included in the drawings.
(c)
Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner
shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not
less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof.
Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
37 CFR 1.81 (d)
Drawings submitted after the filing date of the application
may not be
used to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of
an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, or to
supplement the original disclosure thereof for the purpose of
interpretation of the scope of any claim.
除非说明书说地够清楚了，要不然要补充图式是很困难的
而1.83(a)规定了想写进claim的发明(能用图表示的)都要画成图
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc), 来自: 49.159.149.114
※ 文章网址: http://webptt.com/cn.aspx?n=bbs/Patent/M.1398782310.A.DB8.html
4F：→ kaikai1112:可是我印象中好像看过没图式的化学案阿...... 04/29 22:45
6F：→ kaikai1112:会走路的 MPEP 太神了............(跪拜......) 04/29 22:49
7F：推 dakkk:解决我的疑惑 最近被客户问可不可以加图=.= 04/29 22:58
8F：推 madgame:…是 ipme 神啦！！！ 04/30 00:20
9F：推 fermion:很多方法专利也没图啊. (尽信书？) 04/30 04:29
10F：推 fermion:37 CFR 1.183... 04/30 04:32
11F：推 kaikai1112:所以结论还是有领域别的问题?? 至少在机构案像原po说的 04/30 07:24
12F：→ deathcustom:only方法的基本上可以不用图啊(你flow chart跟说明书 04/30 08:30
13F：→ deathcustom:其实没两样..依据IUPAC命名规则的化学案基本上也不用 04/30 08:31
14F：→ deathcustom:所以主要在电路与机构案(装置的耦接、作动与讯号传递) 04/30 08:31
15F：→ deathcustom:37 CFR那可不只是一本书，他是有法律效力的，所以要 04/30 08:33
16F：→ deathcustom:认真看待他订的规则 04/30 08:33
17F：→ deathcustom:如果我提MPEP(非判例段)您可以说我尽信书(不如无书) 04/30 08:34
18F：→ deathcustom:盖因MPEP基本上没有法律规范的效力，但是CFR虽然不是 04/30 08:35
19F：→ deathcustom:USC，仍然具有法律规范地效力唷 04/30 08:35
20F：推 fermion:推荐你看 37 CFR 1.183 04/30 08:54
21F：推 fermion:再推荐你看 5 USC 553 04/30 09:27
22F：推 madgame:从 35 USC 113 的文字就可以看出图式不一定是必要的，所以 04/30 11:42
23F：→ madgame:我一直是把 37 CFR 1.83a 当成不小心写太严的规定 04/30 11:42