兩件目前美國最熱門的新案例

5 posts / 0 new
最新回應
訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
兩件目前美國最熱門的新案例

必看案例,美國 supreme court 的新判決:

Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1056.pdf

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/04-1350.pdf

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
兩件目前美國最熱門的新案例

很想知道這2個判例的過程

不知道有沒有人願意分享心得??

感謝~~

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
兩件目前美國最熱門的新案例

The following is a memo that went out to the Technology Center Directors at the PTO re the recent KSR Supreme Court case. I thought it is a good summary to share with everyone here.

MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 3,2007
TO: Technology Center Directors
PROM: Margaret A. Focarino,
Deputy Commissioner for Patent Operations
for Patent Operations

SUBJECT: Supreme Court decision on KSR Int'l. Co., v. Teleflex, Inc.

The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in KSlt, regarding the issue of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) when the claim recites a combination of elements of the prior art. ICSR Int'l
Co. v. Telejlex, Inc., No 04-1350 (U.S. Apr. 30,2007). A copy of the decision is available at
htta://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/04-1350.pdf. The office is studying the opinion
and will issue guidance to the patent examining corps in view of the KSR decision in the near
future. Until the guidance is issued, the following points should be noted:
(1) The Court reaffirmed the Graham factors in the determination of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. $ 103(a). The four factual inquiries under Graham are:
(a) determining the scope and contents ofthe prior art;
(b) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue;
(c) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
(d) evaluating evidence of secondary consideration.
Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18,148 USPQ 459,467 (1966).
(2) The Court did not totally reject the use of "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" as a factor in
the obviousness analysis. Rather, the Court recognized that a showing of "teaching, suggestion,
or motivation" to combine the prior art to meet the claimed subject matter could provide a
helpful insight in determining whether the claimed subject matter is obvious under 35 U.S.C.
(3) The Court rejected a rigid application of the "teaching, suggestion, or motivation" (TSM)
test, which required a showing of some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that
would lead one of ordinary skill in theart to combine the prior art elements in the manner
claimed in the application or patent before holding the claimed subject matter to be obvious.
(4) The Court noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. $i 103(a) should be
made explicit, and that it was "important to identify a reason that would have prompted a person
of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the [prior art] elements" in the manner claimed.
The Court specifically stated:
Often, it will be necessary . . . to look to interrelated teachings of multiple patents;
the effects of demands known to the design community or present in the
marketplace; and the background knowledge possessed by a person having
ordinary skill in the art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at
issue. To facilitate review, this analysis should be made explicit.
KSR, slip op. at 14 (emphasis added).
Therefore, in formulating a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 8 103(a) based upon a
eombination of prior art elements, it remains necessary to identify the reason why a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the prior art elements in the
manner claimed.

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Re: 兩件目前美國最熱門的新案例

Anonymous wrote:很想知道這2個判例的過程

不知道有沒有人願意分享心得??

感謝~~

A brief with several links on wikipedia may be useful: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KSR_v._Teleflex

milezhu
milezhu 的照片
兩件目前美國最熱門的新案例

昨日美国一联邦地区法院法官在讲座中提到了该案子。也强调了该案子的重要性。确实值得学习。

Log in or register to post comments