|
本文中的美國(guó)最新判例，給出了一個(gè)用公知常識(shí)評(píng)述專利創(chuàng)造性的示例。PTAB基于一些參考文件，以及充分的說(shuō)理和專家意見(jiàn)，認(rèn)定可以使用公知常識(shí)替換對(duì)比文件中的一些特征。這樣的分析思路對(duì)于國(guó)內(nèi)專利實(shí)務(wù)也有參考意義。
后附Google翻譯，僅供參考。
“The technology involved in this appeal is simple” and Allows Common Sense to Substitute for Elements Not in the Prior ArtJune 26, 2020 | PatentlyO - Dennis CrouchB/E Aerospace v C&D Zodiac (Fed. Cir. 2020)Commercial aircraft lavatories are always oddly shaped in order provide some amount of functionality while minimizing space usage. B/E’s patent here covers the shape of the bathroom that includes the carve-out for a seat just forward — notice the “s” shape of the wall in the image below. On appeal here the Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB obviousness decision. This outcome was easy to guess once I read the court’s opening discussion line: “The technology involved in this appeal is simple.” U.S. Patent Nos. 9,073,641 and 9,440,742.The claims includes two “recesses” in the wall — you can see these in Figure 2 above.
- an upper recess to receive the inclined seat-back; and
- a lower recess for the back legs (“seat support”)
PTAB found the claimed invention obvious based upon the two prior art references shown below (and note the lower bottom recess):Neither of the prior art references include the lower recess to support the back legs. However, the PTAB concluded that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify these to include the claimed second recess. The Board concluded that this modification is was a “predictable” modification for solving a known problem — especially when “coupled with common sense.”
The Board was helped-along with its prior art analysis looking at several other contemporary references showing a lower recess. I’ll note here that these contemporary references were not used as “prior art” but rather as information of the level of skill in the art.On appeal, the Federal Circuit has affirmed finding the second recess “nothing more than the predictable application of known technology . . . because a person of
skill in the art would have applied a variation of the first recess and would have seen the benefit of doing so.” In addition, the court found that it would have been “common sense” to modify the prior art in order to try to save further space.Here, the Board’s invocation of common sense was properly accompanied by reasoned analysis and evidentiary support. The Board dedicated more than eight pages of analysis to the “second recess” limitation and relied on
Mr. Anderson’s detailed expert testimony. The Board noted Mr. Anderson’s opinion that a “person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that as a seat is moved further aft the seat support necessarily is also moved further aft.” Slip Op. The court particularly noted that the simplicity of the technology aided in the conclusion of obviousness.Here, just like in Perfect Web, the evidence shows that the technology of the claimed invention is simple. The patents relate to contoured walls that “reduce or eliminate the gaps and volumes of space required between lavatory enclosures and adjacent structures.” The missing claim limitation (the “second recess”) involves repetition of an existing element (the “first recess”) until success is achieved. With regard to the design drawings submitted to identify the level of skill in the art. The Federal Circuit determined that it need not reach the issue of whether they were improperly handled or prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 311(b). Rather, the court held that the PTAB’s obviousness conclusion stands on its own – based upon the two prior art references coupled with the expert testimony.
Google 翻譯： “此上訴所涉及的技術(shù)很簡(jiǎn)單”，并且可以用公知常識(shí)代替現(xiàn)有技術(shù)中的元素June 26, 2020 | PatentlyO - Dennis Crouch商用飛機(jī)的洗手間總是形狀怪異，以提供一定數(shù)量的功能，同時(shí)最大程度地減少空間使用。B / E的專利涵蓋了浴室的形狀，其中包括前排座椅的開孔-請(qǐng)注意下圖中的“ S”形墻。在此上訴中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院確認(rèn)了PTAB的明顯性決定。一旦我閱讀了法院開庭討論的內(nèi)容，就很容易猜出這個(gè)結(jié)果：“這項(xiàng)上訴所涉及的技術(shù)很簡(jiǎn)單?！?nbsp;美國(guó)專利號(hào)9,073,641和9,440,742。聲明中包括兩個(gè)“凹進(jìn)處”-您可以在上面的圖2中看到它們。
PTAB根據(jù)以下所示的兩個(gè)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻(xiàn)（請(qǐng)注意下部底部凹槽）發(fā)現(xiàn)要求保護(hù)的發(fā)明是顯而易見(jiàn)的：現(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻(xiàn)均未包括下部凹口以支撐后腿。但是，PTAB得出結(jié)論，熟練的技術(shù)人員會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)很明顯地將它們修改為包括所要求的第二凹口。審計(jì)委員會(huì)得出結(jié)論，此修改是解決已知問(wèn)題的“可預(yù)測(cè)”修改，尤其是在“與常識(shí)相結(jié)合”時(shí)。
董事會(huì)在其現(xiàn)有技術(shù)分析的幫助下，研究了其他一些參考文獻(xiàn)，顯示出較低的空缺。在此我將指出，這些當(dāng)代參考文獻(xiàn)不是用作“現(xiàn)有技術(shù)”，而是用作有關(guān)本領(lǐng)域技術(shù)水平的信息。在上訴中，聯(lián)邦巡回法院確認(rèn)找到第二個(gè)隱窩“無(wú)非就是可預(yù)見(jiàn)的已知技術(shù)應(yīng)用。。。因?yàn)?br>本領(lǐng)域技術(shù)人員會(huì)應(yīng)用第一凹槽的變體，并且會(huì)發(fā)現(xiàn)這樣做的好處。” 此外，法院認(rèn)為修改現(xiàn)有技術(shù)以試圖節(jié)省更多空間是“常識(shí)”。
在這里，委員會(huì)的常識(shí)援引得到了合理的分析和證據(jù)支持。董事會(huì)將超過(guò)八頁(yè)的分析專門用于“第二輪休假”的限制，并依靠
安德森先生的詳細(xì)專家證詞。董事會(huì)注意到安德森先生的觀點(diǎn)，即“本領(lǐng)域的普通技術(shù)人員將認(rèn)識(shí)到，隨著座椅向后移動(dòng)，座椅支架必定也向后移動(dòng)”。 滑操作。法院特別指出，該技術(shù)的簡(jiǎn)單性有助于得出顯而易見(jiàn)的結(jié)論。在這里，就像在Perfect Web中一樣，證據(jù)表明所要求保護(hù)的發(fā)明的技術(shù)很簡(jiǎn)單。這些專利涉及“減少或消除盥洗室圍墻與相鄰結(jié)構(gòu)之間所需的間隙和空間體積”的異形墻。遺失的索賠限制（“第二個(gè)隱患”）涉及重復(fù)現(xiàn)有要素（“第一個(gè)隱患”），直到獲得成功為止。 關(guān)于提交的設(shè)計(jì)圖紙，以識(shí)別本領(lǐng)域的技術(shù)水平。聯(lián)邦巡回法院裁定，無(wú)需解決35 USC 311（b）是否對(duì)其進(jìn)行了不當(dāng)處理或禁止的問(wèn)題。相反，法院認(rèn)為PTAB的顯而易見(jiàn)性結(jié)論是獨(dú)立存在的-基于兩個(gè)現(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻(xiàn)以及專家的證詞。Source:https:///patent/2020/06/technology-involved-obvious.htmlEach article is copyrighted to their original authors. The news is for informational purposes only and does not provide legal advice.
|
