发明专利的创造性判断案例研究

硕士学位论文

发明专利的创造性判断案例研究

CASE STUDY ABOUT JUDGE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS

REQUIREMENT

院系：凯原法学院

专业：法律硕士（知识产权方向）

姓名：赵佑斌

指导教师：寿步教授

完成日期：2009年12月1日

发明专利的创造性判断案例研究

摘要

在专利法中发明专利的创造性是申请人获得专利权的最大障碍和最后一道门槛，也是最能够体现专利价值且最有争议的部分。许多国家对专利审查都有自己详细的标准，中国也是如此，但是在专利审查实践中，发明专利创造性的判断标准十分模糊和不确定。本文从具体的案例入手，分析目前创造性存在的问题，并从实际出发提出探讨解决方法。

本文分为三大部分，第一部分介绍国内外关于发明专利创造性判断的各种情况，从发明专利创造性的概念入手，阐述了发明专利的创造性判断构成要件，包括本领域技术人员、现有技术、发明专利创造性判断步骤等，为下文的案例分析建立理论框架。

第二部分是根据创造性判断的具体要件和步骤，结合现实中的案例，剖析专利审查中发明专利创造性判断的各个步骤中存在的问题和原因，文章着重从发明专利创造性判断的各个层面出发分别介绍，包括现有技术的内容和范围、本领域技术人员、突出的实质性特点、显著的进步，分析了实践中在上述各方面判断中存在的问题，如现有技术中对比文献过于复杂宽泛，难以找到精确的对比文献，公开程度不确定，本领域技术人员的水平难以客观化，突出的实质性特点运用启示标准问题较大，不够全面。

第三部分，针对具体的问题提出解决措施，在指出目前的判断方法不足的前提下，提出改进措施，使发明专利创造性判断标准更为客观，包括明确现有技术的范围和内容以及技术领域的划分，确定本领域普通技术水平的标准，最后提出一种以现有技术为起点的判断发明专利创造性的可预测性方法。

关键词：发明专利，专利创造性，现有技术，本领域技术人员

CASE STUDY ABOUT JUDGE OF NONOBVIOUSNESS

REQUIREMENT

ABSTRACT

The nonobviousness, embodied in patent law, is the most important obstacle that patent applicants face and the last threshold to patentability, which reflects the patent value and also is the most controversial issue between examiners and patent applicants. Many countries in the world have published their own examination standard, including China, but in the patent examination，the standards of nonobviousness are ambiguous and indeterminate.

This paper, divided into three parts, reveals some weaknesses of the measures for the task of judging nonobviousness based on the special cases and provide some solutions. The first part introduces the various situations and elements of judging nonobviousness, including the person having ordinary skill in the art, the prior art, the steps of judging nonobviousness among others theoretically.

The second part introduces different aspects of judging nonobviousness, for instance, the ascertainment of the scope and content of the prior art, the substantive characteristics, the level of ordinary skill in the art, and also analyze technical weaknesses of nonobviousness standards in the connection with the special cases, including the person skilled in the art, prominent substantive features and notable progress, it is impossible to measure the level of ordinary skill, and therefore impossible to determine whether the invention is non-obvious.

The third part provide several specific measures as to the issues during the judge of nonobviousness , pointing out that the baseline level of ordinary skill in the art is essential to judging the nonobviousness of a given invention, but remains only vaguely identified concerning whether an invention was obvious for the requisite judgment of the person of ordinary skill. It is proposed that predictability of technology should be a relatively easy factor to apply.

KEY WORDS: invention patent, nonobviousness, prior art, the person skilled in the art