Overcome rejection on Markush claim

12 posts / 0 new
最新回應
訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Overcome rejection on Markush claim

各位先進, 請教一個問題,
當一個 Markush claim (......材料係選自A B C D E F and G)被審者以 A 不具非顯而易知性核駁時, 除了把原 claim A 刪掉再送審以外, 可以把這個Markush claim 拆成兩個 Markush claims 嗎? 例如 一個claim 改成材料係選自 B C and D; 另一個claim改成材料係選自 E F and G. 因為看起來審查委員沒有仔細審其他的 B~G 材料, 僅以 A 就把這個claim駁掉了.
感謝回應!

ides13
ides13 的照片
Markush claim (......材料係選自A B

Markush claim (......材料係選自A B C D E F and G)

Markush claim的請求項常被誤用,其實當使用 Markush claim時,就暗示著申請人已認為「A B C D E F and G」之間,是可互相替代的,亦即顯而易知的。

因此,當審查員找到前案揭示A時,不必審B~G 就可直接核駁。

不過,還是可以嘗試著拆開,答辯看看,但要有心理準備。
答辯內容也要寫清楚為何即使已揭露了A,但B~G 還是非顯而易知的。
當初僅是誤用,不是申請人已認為「A B C D E F and G」之間,是可互相替代的,亦即顯而易知的。

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Logically wrong

There is nothing wrong if the invention is obvious to inventor's point of view. It is whether the invention is obvious to ordinary skilled artisans in the pertinent art.

ides13
ides13 的照片
訪客 wrote:There is nothing

訪客 wrote:There is nothing wrong if the invention is obvious to inventor's point of view. It is whether the invention is obvious to ordinary skilled artisans in the pertinent art.

………,……。

再修正一下。

當使用 Markush claim時,就 可推定 申請人已認為 「A B C D E F and G」之間,對本領域具有通常知識者,是可互相替代的。

因此,當審查員找到前案揭示A時,不必審B~G 就可直接 推定其為顯而易知並加以 核駁。

Markush claim其實是一種“個人創造“的上位用語,當下位被揭露後,這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“不具新穎性”。當下位被認為顯而易知後,這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“顯而易知”

當然,還是可以依樓上網友所述進行答辯,只是要克服前述的“推定”,申請人需要花比較多的舉證責任,證明B~G的進步性。另外,答辯方式可以比照下位被揭露的情況,進行答辯。

因此,建議若一開始就認為下位概念「A」、「B C and D」及「E F and G」」之間是不可互相替代的,互相具有進步性,希望審查員個別進行檢索及審查,就應該要分三個claim寫。當然這會有「單一性」的問題。

此外,不單純是Markush claim,使用“or”用語的情況也適用。

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Wrong again!

ides13 wrote:訪客 wrote:There is nothing wrong if the invention is obvious to inventor's point of view. It is whether the invention is obvious to ordinary skilled artisans in the pertinent art.

………,……。

再修正一下。

當使用 Markush claim時,就 可推定 申請人已認為 「A B C D E F and G」之間,對本領域具有通常知識者,是可互相替代的。

因此,當審查員找到前案揭示A時,不必審B~G 就可直接 推定其為顯而易知並加以 核駁。

Markush chain is not admission of "B~G = obvious alternative from A" for anyone (inventor, examiner or other artisan) at all.

ides13
ides13 的照片
However, Markush chain is

However, Markush chain is acknowledgement of "B~G = alternative from A" by inventor.
And, if the inventors think that "B~G is not obviously alternative from A", they should not choose Markush claim to define their invention.

ides13
ides13 的照片
http://ftp.resource.org/court

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/205/205.F2d.185.5935.html

If on examination of a generic Markush type claim, it be found that the applicant has included one or more members known to be old in the art for the same purpose as in the applicant's invention, the group in its entirety must fail of recognition in exactly the same manner as would have been the case had the group of elements of the claim been identified by a single term. In such contingency, a formula of lesser scope may be invoked, provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group. In re Hass et al., supra.3

答辯的重點。
provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group

由於申請人一開始就使用Markush claim代表A B C and D具有a first common quality。
因此最好的答辯理由是「B C and D」的具有a second common quality different from the first common quality。

個人認為就是因為申請人一開始使用Markush claim,才讓審查員被教導成A B C and D間具有common quality,能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效,才會變得較難答辯。所以,假如一開始申請人初步判斷A B C and D間可能會被認為具有common quality能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效,就要刻意的閃躲,即使自己已認為有common quality,也要用沒有的語氣來撰寫,清楚的表明申請人從不認為A B C and D間具有common quality,並分三個claim寫或分三個案子申請,這樣子答辯會較輕鬆。

當然,現實與理想,相差很遠,個人想說的僅是理論,

其他試著以如下方式答辯,雖然申請人使用Markush claim,但A B C and D間卻沒有common quality,亦可以直接承認誤用(當然誤用兩字不必要寫於理由書中),直接向審查員說明A B C and D間卻沒有common quality。但「B C and D」的具有a common quality,而且是patentable的。

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
OMG

Lack of "common quality" = Lack of unity of invention = Improper Markush group!!
Please...

ides13
ides13 的照片
訪客 wrote:Lack of "common

訪客 wrote:Lack of "common quality" = Lack of unity of invention = Improper Markush group!!
Please...
Yap, finally you got it.

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
You're not getting it.

Can't believe that you think making Markush group improper is a successful argument. People make Markush claims for reasons, you're not only waste people's money for prosecution but also put their patent at risks. I hope you're not doing any responses for anyone. Good luck~

ides13
ides13 的照片
訪客 wrote:Can't believe that

訪客 wrote:Can't believe that you think making Markush group improper is a successful argument. People make Markush claims for reasons, you're not only waste people's money for prosecution but also put their patent at risks. I hope you're not doing any responses for anyone. Good luck~
個人認為,先前的發言沒有說過「making Markush group improper is a successful argument」、「Markush chain is admission of "B~G = obvious alternative from A" for anyone (inventor, examiner or other artisan) at all.」。

一切都是你自己說的。

另外,上位的claim不具可專利性時,下位的範圍就會面臨單一性的問題,以本例而言,
Markush claim (......材料係選自A B C D E F and G),當A不具可專利性時,依貼文者所言,「B C and D」及「E F and G」」應已不具單一性。

個人認為當你說「There is nothing wrong if the invention is obvious to inventor's point of view.」時,你的意見早已有嚴重的錯誤,請留意判例的句子「the applicant has included one or more members known to be old in the art for the same purpose as in the applicant's invention, the group in its entirety must fail」。以及「B C and D」及「E F and G」」應已不具單一性。

也許你也可以表示一下你更專業且明確的意見,這才能令人佩服,從你先前的意見看不出效果。
你的發言很無禮,對於你曲解別人原意的發言我也無願與你筆戰,之後不再做任何回應。

頁面

Log in or register to post comments