1 Examination Standard of Inventive Step in Taiwan Tony C. H. Lin Patent Attorney APAA Taiwan Group Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law November 18, 2007 in Adelaide.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Technology Center 1600 Training on Writing Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Advertisements

Intellectual Property Fundamentals Ed Genocchio - Principal of Spruson & Ferguson - Mechanical Group Presentation to The Australian Technology Showcase.
Guided Exercises: Inventive Step
Protection of Computer Software and Databases Arkadiusz Kwapisz, Examiner Patent Examination Department Patent Office of the Republic of Poland Software-implemented.
1 Bioinformatics Practice Considerations October 20, 2011 Ling Zhong, Ph.D.
1 Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
Patent, Trademark, Copyright, and Enforcement - Law and Policy November 5-8, 2007 United States Patent and Trademark Office Global Intellectual Property.
1 35 USC 112, 1 st paragraph enablement Enablement Practice in TC 1600 Deborah Reynolds, SPE
The America Invents Act (AIA) - Rules and Implications of First to File, Prior Art, and Non-obviousness -
Invention Spotting – Identifying Patentable Inventions Martin Vinsome June 2012.
“REACH-THROUGH CLAIMS”
P A T E N T A T T O R N E Y S The EPO‘s approach in assessing inventive step for antibody claims Dr. Andreas Hübel M I C H A L S K I H Ü T T E R M A N.
Determination of Obviousness Practice Under the Genus-Species Guidelines and In re Ochiai; In re Brouwer Sreeni Padmanabhan & James Wilson Supervisory.
Determining Obviousness under 35 USC 103 in view of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex TC3600 Business Methods January 2008.
Biopiracy Biopiracy is defined as, “the illegal appropriation of life – micro-organisms, plants and animals (including humans) and the traditional knowledge.
Vs. Miguel Chan UC Berkeley IEOR 190G March 2009.
ISMT 520 Lecture #6: Protecting Technical and Business Process Innovations Dr. Theodore H. K. Clark Associate Professor and Academic Director of MSc Programs.
by Eugene Li Summary of Part 3 – Chapters 8, 9, and 10
Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School March 3, 2008 Patent - Nonobviousness.
Patent Overview by Jeff Woller. Why have Patents? Patents make some people rich – but, does that seem like something the government should protect? Do.
Intellectual Property Boston College Law School February 16, 2009 Patent – Novelty.
Rodolphe Bauer, Frédéric Dedek, Gareth Jenkins, Cristina Margarido
PatentEng-Berkeley-Lavian Week 7: Anticipation and Obviousness 1 Patent Engineering IEOR 190G CET: Center for Entrepreneurship &Technology Week 7 Dr. Tal.
Utility Requirement in Japan Makoto Ono, Ph.D. Anderson, Mori & Tomotsune Website:
An invention is a unique or novel device, method, composition or process. It may be an improvement upon a machine or product, or a new process for creating.
Understanding patent claims (a) Toy ball. Sub-module CUnderstanding patent claims - (a) Toy ball 2/15 The invention A ball that is fun to use, easy to.
Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. § 103 After KSR v. Teleflex
Broadening the Scope of the Claims in Gene Therapy Applications Deborah Reynolds Detailee, TCPS
Categories of Claims in the Field of CII Edoardo Pastore European Patent Office Torino, October 2011.
Non-Patent Literature (NPL) in the Patent Prior-Art Search USPTO Patents Search Templates, WIPO Requirement & EPO Resources Connie Wu Engineering and Patent.
European Patent Applicants Filing in China Common Mistakes Zheng Li Zhongzi Law Office September, 2014.
1 Patent Law in the Age of IoT The Landscape Has Shifted. Are You Prepared? 1 Jeffrey A. Miller, Esq.
Patent Law Presented by: Walker & Mann, LLP Walker & Mann, LLP 9421 Haven Ave., Suite 200 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca Office.
1 LAW DIVISION PATENT DIVISION TRADEMARK & DESIGN DIVISION ACCOUNTING & AUDITING DIVISION YUASA AND HARA LAW, PATENT, TRADEMARK & DESIGN and ACCOUNTING.
Overcoming Prior Art References Non-Enabling Prior Art References Gary Kunz SPE Art Unit 1616.
Obviousness II Class Notes: February 11, 2003 Law 677 | Patent Law | Spring 2003 Professor Wagner.
Stereochemistry and Christopher Low
Introduction to Patents Anatomy of a Patent & Procedures for Getting a Patent Margaret Hartnett Commercialisation & IP Manager University.
Vision Statement: “An Intellectual Property-conscious Philippines in a Demystified, Development-oriented, and Democratized IP System by 2020” 1.
1 Written Description Analysis and Capon v. Eshhar Jeffrey Siew Supervisory Patent Examiner AU 1645 USPTO (571)
Intellectual Property Law © 2007 IBM Corporation EUPACO 2 – The European Patent Conference 16 May 2007 Patent Quality Roger Burt IBM Europe.
New Sections 102 & 103 (b) Conditions for Patentability- (1) IN GENERAL- Section 102 of title 35, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: -`Sec.
6.1 Chapter 6 Patents © 2003 by West Legal Studies in Business/A Division of Thomson Learning.
Overview Validity of patent hinges on novelty, utility, and non-obviousness Utility generally not an issue Pre-suit investigation focuses on infringement,
Examining Claims for Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112(a): Part II – Enablement Focus on Electrical/Mechanical and Computer/Software-related Claims August.
Claims, Anticipation, and Obviousness Kathleen Kahler Fonda Legal Advisor, Office of Patent Legal Administration July 30, 2010.
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims” George Elliott Practice Specialist Technology Center 1600
USPTO Guidelines for Determining Obviousness in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. TC 1600 Biotech/Chem/Pharma.
Update on IP High Court -Trend of Determination on Inventive Step in IP High Court in comparison with the JPO- JPAA International Activities Center Toshifumi.
Olek Pawlowski IEOR 190 Spring 2009 UC Berkeley Explaining the basic concepts of the landmark Supreme Court patent case of KSR vs. Teleflex and specifically.
Lecture 27 Intellectual Property. Intellectual Property simply defined is any form of knowledge or expression created with one's intellect. It includes.
PATENTS, INTEGRATED CIRCUITS, AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS Presented By: Navdeep World Trade Organization.
USPTO Guidelines for Determining Obviousness in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. Kathleen Kahler Fonda Legal.
Software Protection in Korea Ways to protect software-related inventions –Software Patent –Computer Program Copyright –Trade Secret –Confidentiality Contract.
Enablement requirement in view of recent IP court decisions Toshihiko Aikawa Japan Patent Attorneys Association International Activities Center AIPLA Mid-Winter.
JP Supreme Court (Nov. 17, 2015) Patent Term Extension based on a Second Marketing Approval Pre-Meeting AIPLA MWI La Quinta, CA: Jan.26, 2016 Hirokazu.
1 Examination Guidelines for Business Method Invention 24. Jan Young-tae Son( 孫永泰, Electronic Commerce Examination Team Korean.
BLW 360 – January 27, 2015 Jonathan LA Phillips
© 2011 Barnes & Thornburg LLP. All Rights Reserved. This page, and all information on it, is the property of Barnes & Thornburg LLP which may not be reproduced,
Introduction to Intellectual Property Class of Sept
An introduction to Intellectual property protection TG © Copyright by Stevens Institute of Technology.
Professional Engineering Practice
Options to Protect an Invention: the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) and Trade Secrets Hanoi October 24, 2017 Peter Willimott Senior Program Officer WIPO.
Wisdom of the Board Ex parte PTAB Decisions Show Effective Arguments to Overcome an Obviousness Rejection Trent Ostler The content is exclusively the.
Upcoming changes in the European Patent Office practice on allowing claim amendments in pending patent applications (Article 123(2) EPC) Christof Keussen.
Unity of invention – outcome of the IP5 work MEETING OF INTERNATIONAL AUTHORITIES – QUALITY SUBGROUP Camille Bogliolo (PCT Affairs) and Luigi Petrucci.
A tutorial and update on patentable subject matter
What You Didn’t Know That You Didn’t Know About Patents
Examination Practice in Applications Presenting “Reach-Through Claims”
Presentation transcript:

1 Examination Standard of Inventive Step in Taiwan Tony C. H. Lin Patent Attorney APAA Taiwan Group Lee and Li, Attorneys-at-Law November 18, 2007 in Adelaide

2 Inventive Step Requirement If the invention can be easily conceived by a person having ordinarily skill in the art based on prior art before the application for patent is filed, no invention patent should be granted If the invention can be easily conceived by a person having ordinarily skill in the art based on prior art before the application for patent is filed, no invention patent should be granted

3 PERSON HAVING ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART A virtual person who has general knowledge in the related technical field and ordinary ability to perform routine work and routine experiment A virtual person who has general knowledge in the related technical field and ordinary ability to perform routine work and routine experiment General knowledge means well-known or widely used information, information disclosed in textbooks or reference books, or understandings based on rule of thumb General knowledge means well-known or widely used information, information disclosed in textbooks or reference books, or understandings based on rule of thumb

4 PRIOR ART Prior art includes art that has been published, publicly use, or known to the public. Prior art includes art that has been published, publicly use, or known to the public. Prior art also includes well-know or widely used information such as those disclosed in dictionary, textbooks, reference books, etc. Prior art also includes well-know or widely used information such as those disclosed in dictionary, textbooks, reference books, etc. Not only prior art of related technical field, but also prior art of irrelevant technical field but having common technical feature should be considered Not only prior art of related technical field, but also prior art of irrelevant technical field but having common technical feature should be considered

5 EASILY CONCEIVED A claimed invention can be easily conceived if a person having ordinary skill in the art can, after reading one or more citations with reference to common sense at the time of filing, conceive the claimed invention by way of application to another technical field, substitution, modification or combination. A claimed invention can be easily conceived if a person having ordinary skill in the art can, after reading one or more citations with reference to common sense at the time of filing, conceive the claimed invention by way of application to another technical field, substitution, modification or combination.

6 DISCOLSURE OF CITATIONS The disclose of a citation includes not only clearly written contents but also unwritten but substantially implied contents. The disclose of a citation includes not only clearly written contents but also unwritten but substantially implied contents.

7 STEPS TO DETERMINE INVENTIVE STEP Step1: ascertain the scope of the claimed invention Step1: ascertain the scope of the claimed invention Step2: ascertain the disclosure of relevant prior art Step2: ascertain the disclosure of relevant prior art Step 3: ascertain the level of technical knowledge of persons having ordinary skill in the art Step 3: ascertain the level of technical knowledge of persons having ordinary skill in the art Step 4: ascertain the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art Step 4: ascertain the difference between the claimed invention and the prior art Step 5: ascertain whether persons having ordinary skill in the art can easily conceived the entirety of the claimed invention Step 5: ascertain whether persons having ordinary skill in the art can easily conceived the entirety of the claimed invention

8 MOTIVATION TO COMBINE TECHNICAL FEATURES Reasonable motivation is required to combine more than one technical features. Reasonable motivation is required to combine more than one technical features. However, motivation to combine more than one technical features may be based on common sense, without pointing out where the motivation to combine is disclosed. However, motivation to combine more than one technical features may be based on common sense, without pointing out where the motivation to combine is disclosed. Basic similarly to KSR v. Teleflex judgment in the US. Basic similarly to KSR v. Teleflex judgment in the US.

9 SECONDARY CONSIDERATIONS Having unexpected effect Having unexpected effect Solving long-existing problem Solving long-existing problem Overcoming technical prejudice Overcoming technical prejudice Gaining commercial success Gaining commercial success

10 WAY OF CREATION Irrelevant to evaluation of inventive step. Irrelevant to evaluation of inventive step. It doesn’t matter whether an invention is created by accident or developed as a result of extensive research. It doesn’t matter whether an invention is created by accident or developed as a result of extensive research.

11 PIONEER INVENTION Generally considered as having inventive step if no close prior art citation was found. Generally considered as having inventive step if no close prior art citation was found.

12 INVENTION OF APPLICATION TO ANOTHER TECHNICAL FIELD Considered as having inventive step if it can realized unexpected effect or overcome the long-exiting problem in the technical field. Considered as having inventive step if it can realized unexpected effect or overcome the long-exiting problem in the technical field. Example: Example: –Prior art: a compound for reducing surface tension of water –Claimed invention: a detergent containing said compound –Inventive step: NO

13 INVENTION OF USE Considered as having inventive step if it can generate unexpected effect Considered as having inventive step if it can generate unexpected effect Example: Example: –Prior art: A lubricant having cooling effect. –Claimed invention: A grinding slurry containing said lubricant. –Invention step: NO

14 INVENTION OF SUBSTITUTION Considered as having inventive step if it generates unexpected effect. Considered as having inventive step if it generates unexpected effect. Example: Example: –Prior art: Water pump comprising an electrical motor. –Claimed invention: Water pump comprising a hydraulic motor. –Inventive step: NO

15 INVENTION OF OMISSION Considered as having inventive step if the function of the invention is not lost by the omission. Considered as having inventive step if the function of the invention is not lost by the omission.

16 INVENTION OF COMBINATION Considered as having inventive step if it generates new effect or improved effect. Considered as having inventive step if it generates new effect or improved effect. Example: Example: –Prior art: An digital watch and a pen –Claimed invention: A pen with digital watch. –Inventive step: NO

17 INVENTION OF SELECTION Considered as having inventive step if the selection is not directly predictable from the prior art and the selected scope shows more significant effect or unexpected new effect. Considered as having inventive step if the selection is not directly predictable from the prior art and the selected scope shows more significant effect or unexpected new effect. Example: Example: –Prior art: Amount of ingredient X in a composition is related to the stability of the composition. –Claimed invention: Composition having a specific scope of amount of X. –Inventive step: NO (being directly predictable)

18 Thank you for your attention! Tony C. H. Lin