|
本文中的美國最新判例，給出了一個用公知常識評述專利創造性的示例。PTAB基于一些參考文件，以及充分的說理和專家意見，認定可以使用公知常識替換對比文件中的一些特征。這樣的分析思路對于國內專利實務也有參考意義。
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很簡單”，并且可以用公知常識代替現有技術中的元素June 26, 2020 | PatentlyO - Dennis Crouch商用飛機的洗手間總是形狀怪異，以提供一定數量的功能，同時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-請注意下圖中的“ S”形墻。在此上訴中，聯邦巡回法院確認了PTAB的明顯性決定。一旦我閱讀了法院開庭討論的內容，就很容易猜出這個結果：“這項上訴所涉及的技術很簡單。” 美國專利號9,073,641和9,440,742。聲明中包括兩個“凹進處”-您可以在上面的圖2中看到它們。
PTAB根據以下所示的兩個現有技術參考文獻（請注意下部底部凹槽）發現要求保護的發明是顯而易見的：現有技術參考文獻均未包括下部凹口以支撐后腿。但是，PTAB得出結論，熟練的技術人員會發現很明顯地將它們修改為包括所要求的第二凹口。審計委員會得出結論，此修改是解決已知問題的“可預測”修改，尤其是在“與常識相結合”時。
董事會在其現有技術分析的幫助下，研究了其他一些參考文獻，顯示出較低的空缺。在此我將指出，這些當代參考文獻不是用作“現有技術”，而是用作有關本領域技術水平的信息。在上訴中，聯邦巡回法院確認找到第二個隱窩“無非就是可預見的已知技術應用。。。因為
本領域技術人員會應用第一凹槽的變體，并且會發現這樣做的好處。” 此外，法院認為修改現有技術以試圖節省更多空間是“常識”。
在這里，委員會的常識援引得到了合理的分析和證據支持。董事會將超過八頁的分析專門用于“第二輪休假”的限制，并依靠
安德森先生的詳細專家證詞。董事會注意到安德森先生的觀點，即“本領域的普通技術人員將認識到，隨著座椅向后移動，座椅支架必定也向后移動”。 滑操作。法院特別指出，該技術的簡單性有助于得出顯而易見的結論。在這里，就像在Perfect Web中一樣，證據表明所要求保護的發明的技術很簡單。這些專利涉及“減少或消除盥洗室圍墻與相鄰結構之間所需的間隙和空間體積”的異形墻。遺失的索賠限制（“第二個隱患”）涉及重復現有要素（“第一個隱患”），直到獲得成功為止。 關于提交的設計圖紙，以識別本領域的技術水平。聯邦巡回法院裁定，無需解決35 USC 311（b）是否對其進行了不當處理或禁止的問題。相反，法院認為PTAB的顯而易見性結論是獨立存在的-基于兩個現有技術參考文獻以及專家的證詞。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.
|
