親愛的網友:
為確保您享有最佳的瀏覽體驗,建議您提升您的 IE 瀏覽器至最新版本,感謝您的配合。
English OK
哈佛商業評論
北美智權報
能力雜誌
會計研究月刊
獨家報導
cheers
管理雜誌
動腦
兩岸商情

朴有天被綁警繩 瀟灑模樣瞬間崩壞

韓國瑜權貴說 前馬政府官員心寒:專業官僚誰願幫他

What You Need to Know about Inventive Step Determination at the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office

2017-12-29 11:41北美智權報

【Chou Yun/IP Professional】

分享

The amendments to the determination of inventive step enshrined in the examination guidelines of the Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) took effect on July 1, 2016 and from then on TIPO’s office actions refusing grant on inventive step grounds are now based on this new version of the guidelines. These amendments (including the definition of a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA), procedure of inventive step determination and so on) have been made in the hope of setting a clearer standard for the determination of inventive step with some obvious differences from the prior version.

In order to respond to TIPO’s office actions appropriately, it is necessary for the applicant to have a proper understanding of TIPO’s examination guidelines. This article is intended as an introduction to TIPO’s new standards for inventive step determination, in the hope that it will be help readers to understand the spirit of the new version of the guidelines.

Relevant Regulation – Patent Act 22(1), (2)

Before we get to the inventive step, we should first talk about the concept of novelty. Article 22(1) lays down the provisions concerning novelty in Taiwan’s patent act. It stipulates that an invention which is industrially applicable may be granted a patent upon application in accordance with the same act, except if, prior to the filing of its application, the claimed invention was “(i) disclosed in a printed publication”, “(ii) publicly exploited”, or “(iii) publicly known”. The main concept of this provision is that the claimed invention (CI) must not be the subject of prior art. In other words, if any substantial difference is found whilst comparing the CI with any single prior invention, the CI can be said to have novelty.

The prior art that can be used to determine novelty comprises everything made available to the public before the effective filing date by means of a written or oral description, by use, or in any other form. Of course, this also extends to general knowledge. There are no linguistic or geographical restrictions on prior art. Conflicting applications (referred to by Act 23) can be deemed as secret prior art, however, they can only be used to determine novelty.

As for the regulations relating to inventive step, the main reference is the provisions of Article 22 (2), which stipulate that “An invention that is without the circumstances prescribed in the subparagraphs of Article 22 (1) but can be easily made by a person ordinarily skilled in the art (i.e. PHOSITA) based on prior art, shall not be patented.” In other words, even though the claimed invention has novelty, if, prior to the filing date of the patent application, the CI can be easily made by a PHOSITA, based on the relevant prior art, it still shouldn’t be granted patent rights.

The PHOSITA, referred to above, is a hypothetical person and, in some cases, may be a group of people. He/she should be equipped with general knowledge and an average ability in the relevant technical field before the relevant (filing) date and able to use ordinary technical means for research and development, to comprehend all the matter in the prior art of the relevant technical field, and to comprehend all technical matters in the field relevant to problems to be solved by the invention. The skill level of a PHOSITA can be determined by considering (i) the type of problems encountered in the art, (ii) prior art solutions to those problems, (iii) rapidity with which innovations are made, (iv) sophistication of the technology, and (v) educational level of active workers in the field. However, it may usually be reflected by the content of the relevant prior art (RPA). It should be noted that RPA refers to subsets of prior art, belonging to the relevant technical field of the CI or having technical features in common with the CI (i.e. RPA should have relevance to the CI).

Concept and Principle for Inventive Step Determination

The main concept of TIPO’s determination for inventive step is “whether or not the examiner can articulate a rationale to show that a PHOSITA can easily arrive at the CI based on the relevant prior art”. And the principles include:

  1. Combination of several instances (cited inventions) of the relevant prior art is allowable.
  2. While evaluating the scope of a claim, all limitations in the claim must be considered as a whole; i.e. the examiner may not dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then evaluate the elements in isolation.
  3. When there is more than one claim in an application, the inventive step should be determined for each claim.

Procedures for Inventive Step Determination

The flow chart of TIPO’s procedure for inventive step determination is shown in the following figure:

分享

While determining the inventive step, the examiner should follow the steps below.

First of all, they must correctly construe the claimed invention. Similarly to the examiners of other IP offices, when interpreting claims, the broadest reasonable interpretation is adopted by TIPO’s examiners.

Secondly, they must determine the scope and contents of the relevant prior art. Here, the RPA is the prior art belonging to the relevant technical field of the CI or which has technical features in common with the CI (the RPA must have relevance to the CI).

Thirdly, they must determine the level of the PHOSITA. As previously mentioned, the level of the PHOSITA is usually reflected by the content of the RPA.

Fourthly, they must ascertain the differences between the RPA and the CI. It should be noted that, during this stage, the examiner should select cited inventions to form the relevant prior art. The one most suited to this purpose is referred to as the primary prior art (also called PPA); the others are referred as the secondary prior art, the terciary prior art … and so on. And then the difference(s) between the PPA and CI should be identified.

Finally, the existence of an inventive step should be assessed. At this stage, the examiner should take into consideration the factors in support of both non-existence and existence of an inventive step and try to articulate the rationales for obviousness. The following approaches should be adopted:

  1. Consider prudently whether or not there exist any factors in support of the non-existence of an inventive step. The factors in support of the non-existence of an inventive step include “motivation for combining several cited instances of prior art”, “simple variation (of PPA)”, and “mere aggregation (of cited instances of prior art)”.
  2. If the answer is yes, the examiner should further consider factors in support of the existence of an inventive step and try to construct the articulation of rationale for obviousness. The factors in support of the existence of an inventive step include “teach away”, “advantageous effect”, and “secondary consideration”. If the examiner cannot successfully articulate the rationale for obviousness, the claimed invention has an inventive step. On the other hand, if the rationale for obviousness can be reasonably articulated, the claimed invention is without an inventive step.

Factors Taken Into Consideration

As mentioned in the above paragraphs, the examiner should consider the factors in support of non-existence and existence of the inventive step for the claimed invention prudently. Only after considering all the factors involved in these two aspects comprehensively can the existence of an inventive step for the CI be appropriately assessed.

Factors in support of the non-existence of an inventive step include “motivation for combining multiple items of cited prior art”, “simple variation (of PPA)”, and “mere aggregation (of instances of cited prior art)”. And the following points should be noted:

  1. While considering motivation for combining multiple items of cited prior art, the examiners at TIPO should think about the relevance among the cited items of prior art and consider them comprehensively from the following points of view: “relevance of technical fields”, “similarity of problems to be solved”, “similarity of operations or functions”, and “teaching or suggestion”. Please let it be noted that, here, what matters is the relevance of different items of cited prior art, rather than the relevance between the cited prior art and the claimed invention (This is greatly different from the way the scope and contents of the relevant prior art are determined.).
  2. For simple variation, it can include “replacement of equivalents”, “design variation for applying specific technique”, “simple omission causing removal of related functions/effects”, “optimum selection of materials, numerical ranges”, and “similar use of known technique in relevant technical field”.
  3. As for mere aggregation, the examiner should indicate that functions or operations of claimed elements are not related to (or do not interact with) each other and therefore the claimed invention is a mere aggregation of cited prior art inventions.

On the other hand, factors in support of the existence of an inventive step include “teach away”, “advantageous effect”, and “secondary consideration”. And the following points should be noted:

  1. For teach away, the examiner should note that evidence leading the PHOSITA away from arriving at the claimed invention may support the existence of an inventive step.
  2. For advantageous effect, the examiner should note that advantageous effect, which is disclosed in or can be speculated (by PHOSITA) from the description (drawings…) of the application, should be considered.
  3. As for secondary consideration, it puts emphasis on the CI “resulting in an unexpected result”, “overcoming technical prejudice”, “fulfilling a long‑felt need”, or “obtaining commercial success”.

How to Properly Respond to TIPO’s Notification of Reasons for Refusal on Grounds of Inventive Step

As mentioned in the above paragraphs, TIPO examiners need to be prudent when considering the factors in support of non-existence and existence of the inventive step for the claimed invention and then try to construct the rationale for obviousness. The best way to show the inventive step of the claimed invention, therefore also lies there. Upon receiving notification of reasons for refusal on the grounds of lack of an inventive step, it is suggested that the applicant should first try and understand the rationale articulated by the examiner. Once they have got to grips with the rationale, they should try to argue (i) there actually aren’t any factors in support of the non-existence of inventive step or (ii) there are factors in support of existence of inventive step and to the degree that the rationale for obviousness can’t be reasonably constructed. For example, the applicant can argue that the PHOSITA has no motivation to combine different cited inventions or that the effects achieved by the claimed invention can’t be expected by the PHOSITA based on the relevant prior art. By reasonably arguing all factors concerning the claimed invention with the examiner, it is possible to dismiss the rationale for obviousness and reassure them that there is an inventive step in the claimed invention.

Conclusion

The amendments of TIPO’s examination guidelines for inventive step determination have introduced a clearer standard for the determination of an inventive step. According to this new version of the examination guidelines for inventive step determination, the examiner must take into consideration the factors in support of both non-existence and existence of the inventive step and try to articulate the rationale for obviousness. If the examiner cannot reasonably articulate the rationale for obviousness, the claimed invention has an inventive step. However, if the rationale for obviousness can be reasonably articulated, the claimed invention is without an inventive step. In order to respond to TIPO’s notification of reasons for refusal on the grounds of lack of an inventive step appropriately, it is suggested that the applicant should have good understanding about the logic of TIPO’s inventive step determination and try to emphasize the inventive step of the claimed invention based on the factors described in the examination guidelines.

【Click here to see the original post IP Observer Issue 021; Subscribe to our newsletter

北美智權報

《北美智權報》是台灣最具代表性的智慧財產權電子報,內容涵蓋:熱門產業專利及趨勢分析、美台中及歐洲等各國智權法規解析、侵權訴訟、專利應用、智權管理、產業研發創新等文章,可幫助業者在充滿競爭的市場中,高效率地學習進軍全球市場所需的智權關鍵知識。

相關新聞

科技部推動五年人工智慧計畫 產學界怎麼看?

2017-12-29 11:41

New Southbound Policy Focuses in on IP Protection with Taiwan-ASEAN IP Summit

2017-12-29 11:41

Blind Spot: Asia Pacific Countries Underestimate Data Issues in AI Readiness Projections

2017-12-29 11:41

3D Printing You: Bioprinting in Medicine

2017-12-29 11:41

從審查指南修正看中國專利申請實務之發展與因應

2017-12-29 11:41

Everyone’s a Critic

2017-12-29 11:41

中國專利申請有如美國暫時案制度嗎?

2017-12-29 11:41

股市萬點無感 搶救投資才是硬道理

2017-12-29 11:41

IP News in Brief December, 2017

2017-12-29 11:41

美國專利銷售後限制與國際耗盡:2017年最高法院Impression v. Lexmark 案

2017-12-29 11:41

內容物代理商維權大不易

2017-12-29 08:48

大陸人工智慧技術爭奪激烈,知識產權布局也要趁早!

2017-12-29 08:48

一支iPhone揭露台灣低薪真相

2017-12-29 08:48

淺談中國GUI外觀設計專利的申請近況

2017-12-29 08:48

熱門文章

車險隨便買就好?少保這3種險 小心賠償壓垮你!

2019-04-08 13:27

記者實地演練 瞎掰的論文6天直送國際會議發表

2019-04-08 14:07

一入宮門深似海 雅子妃的美麗與哀愁

2019-04-08 14:49

調查報導/只要付錢 假論文也能登國際期刊?

2019-04-08 08:49

過度醫療:執行手術淪為醫師的高收入來源?

2019-04-09 14:35

各行「薪情」大公開 想拿高薪鎖定這些熱區

2019-04-09 15:59

一路摸索日皇定位 明仁追求和平貼近人民

2019-04-08 15:20

小學堂/日本買房超好賺?投資客全員逃走中

2019-04-08 12:14

當賴清德碰到韓國瑜 輸贏難定?

2019-04-08 09:35

房子住對了人就旺!3種旺運格局報你知

2019-04-08 12:19

《遠見》專訪賴清德:我要打第一場台灣典範級總統初選

2019-04-08 09:33

獲利看得到不一定吃得到 顧立雄幫壽險公司說出的大實話

2019-04-08 08:51

劣質出版商「奧步」全揭露!學者自保靠這4招

2019-04-08 08:44

找電信專業經理人 就是等死?「門外漢」林之晨pk「老將」井琪

2019-04-08 08:47

韓國瑜:上任兩個多月來 感覺好像過了20年

2019-04-08 09:19

揭開神祕「掃樓」大戶 20年暴富傳奇

2019-04-08 08:47

香港人瘋台灣 成移民新熱點

2019-04-08 15:22

加拿大視移民為生力軍 優渥福利協助上軌道

2019-04-08 15:20

時隔202年日皇生前退位 德仁繼位開啟新時代

2019-04-08 14:47

中美貿易戰惡鬥一年 川普到底是如何完勝習近平?

2019-04-10 13:30

陸客大減、旅館住用率剩6成 房產大亨受不了喊賣

2019-04-10 13:27

這個反問 讓她職位三級跳

2019-04-09 15:59

台、星FinTech同時起跑 新加坡憑什麼衝上世界第一?

2019-04-08 09:36

台南/南科加溫房市 永康房地價穩量增

2019-04-08 12:04

新世代最嚮往企業:誠品二度奪冠 逾半新鮮人第一份工作不打算做超過2年

2019-04-09 15:59

連陽明山別墅都求售 這些年黎智英在台灣賣了多少棟樓?

2019-04-10 14:04

台北/1人享3坪綠地 民生社區坐擁特色環境

2019-04-08 11:42

直擊電子菸銷售大本營 深圳產量冠全球

2019-04-08 08:48

可怕記憶揮之不去?科學家發現大腦中導致恐懼記憶重現的關鍵神經元

2019-04-09 07:24

房貸族注意!踩到這5大地雷就享受不到報稅優惠

2019-04-10 13:28

把「沒定性」變優勢 愈跳槽薪水愈高

2019-04-09 15:59

打破節儉習性 日本35歲以下年輕人消費復甦

2019-04-10 13:26

山陰小京都 島根縣.津和野的幽靜散策

2019-04-09 07:27

現撈活龍蝦、肥美馬蹄蛤 這家火鍋海鮮必收!

2019-04-08 12:17

走過八年歐債危機 歐洲大亂後能否穩健復甦?

2019-04-08 09:37

小心補稅遭罰!今年報稅6大錯誤 你應該避開

2019-04-10 14:35

6個新興崛起成長工作

2019-04-09 15:59

研究:青春期及成年早期重度飲酒 會影響大腦生長速度

2019-04-09 13:16

謝金河×野島剛對談:我看到的邱永漢 》從政治通緝犯變成賺錢之神

2019-04-08 08:51

回歸天性 拒絕揠苗助長 侯佩岑有機教養哲學

2019-04-10 12:11

商品推薦

贊助廣告

商品推薦

留言


Top