|
本文中的美国最新判例，给出了一个用公知常识评述专利创造性的示例。PTAB基于一些参考文件，以及充分的说理和专家意见，认定可以使用公知常识替换对比文件中的一些特征。这样的分析思路对于国内专利实务也有参考意义。
后附Google翻译，仅供参考。
“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 翻译： “此上诉所涉及的技术很简单”，并且可以用公知常识代替现有技术中的元素June 26, 2020 | PatentlyO - Dennis Crouch商用飞机的洗手间总是形状怪异，以提供一定数量的功能，同时最大程度地减少空间使用。B / E的专利涵盖了浴室的形状，其中包括前排座椅的开孔-请注意下图中的“ S”形墙。在此上诉中，联邦巡回法院确认了PTAB的明显性决定。一旦我阅读了法院开庭讨论的内容，就很容易猜出这个结果：“这项上诉所涉及的技术很简单。” 美国专利号9,073,641和9,440,742。声明中包括两个“凹进处”-您可以在上面的图2中看到它们。
PTAB根据以下所示的两个现有技术参考文献（请注意下部底部凹槽）发现要求保护的发明是显而易见的：现有技术参考文献均未包括下部凹口以支撑后腿。但是，PTAB得出结论，熟练的技术人员会发现很明显地将它们修改为包括所要求的第二凹口。审计委员会得出结论，此修改是解决已知问题的“可预测”修改，尤其是在“与常识相结合”时。
董事会在其现有技术分析的帮助下，研究了其他一些参考文献，显示出较低的空缺。在此我将指出，这些当代参考文献不是用作“现有技术”，而是用作有关本领域技术水平的信息。在上诉中，联邦巡回法院确认找到第二个隐窝“无非就是可预见的已知技术应用。。。因为
本领域技术人员会应用第一凹槽的变体，并且会发现这样做的好处。” 此外，法院认为修改现有技术以试图节省更多空间是“常识”。
在这里，委员会的常识援引得到了合理的分析和证据支持。董事会将超过八页的分析专门用于“第二轮休假”的限制，并依靠
安德森先生的详细专家证词。董事会注意到安德森先生的观点，即“本领域的普通技术人员将认识到，随着座椅向后移动，座椅支架必定也向后移动”。 滑操作。法院特别指出，该技术的简单性有助于得出显而易见的结论。在这里，就像在Perfect Web中一样，证据表明所要求保护的发明的技术很简单。这些专利涉及“减少或消除盥洗室围墙与相邻结构之间所需的间隙和空间体积”的异形墙。遗失的索赔限制（“第二个隐患”）涉及重复现有要素（“第一个隐患”），直到获得成功为止。 关于提交的设计图纸，以识别本领域的技术水平。联邦巡回法院裁定，无需解决35 USC 311（b）是否对其进行了不当处理或禁止的问题。相反，法院认为PTAB的显而易见性结论是独立存在的-基于两个现有技术参考文献以及专家的证词。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.
|
