推 piglauhk:感謝指正. 09/04 16:35
→ forman:C大，請問102（b)有發明日前一年優惠？還是你寫錯囉？ 09/05 09:18
※ 編輯: colinh 來自: 118.167.201.220 (09/05 13:54)
→ colinh:申請日才對...拍賽寫錯了 09/05 13:55
推 forman:謝謝c大 09/05 22:26
※ 引述《piglauhk (我要當陽光型男!!)》之銘言：
: 標題譯完了 開始對本文下手 (對啦 我是米蟲..)
: 參考了v大的意見. 小的會從2132開始住下. 一天一篇 約2個月該可譯完2100這部
: 期間在譯文上及TRIZ的學習上 希望各位高手出手從嚴指導
: 隨著時間的過去 實力應會有所提升
: 雖然以我現在的程度不太可能 但小的我譯完後 希望可以集束成小本 賺點小外快
: 用來請板上各位吃點好料 知恩圖報阿 XD
: =========================
: 2132 35 U.S.C. 102(a)
: =========================
: 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to
: patent.
: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
: (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented
: or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before
: the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
: 35 U.S.C 102. 可專利性之條件;新穎性及專利權之喪失，無下列情形之一者，得獲得專
: 利：
: (a) 在專利申請人發明及申請之前，已在本國為他人習知或使用，或在國內外已獲准
: 專利或在印刷刊物 上公開發表者，或
: -----------------------------------------------------------
: I. "KNOWN OR USED" 習知或使用
: "Known or Used" Means Publicly Known or Used
: “習知或使用”意即為大眾習知或使用
: "The statutory language 'known or used by others in this country' (35 U.S.C.
: § 102(a)), means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public."
: Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
: The knowledge or use is accessible to the public if there has been no
: deliberate attempt to keep it secret. W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc.,
: 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
: 法律用語”於國內為他人知悉或使用(35 U.S.C. § 102(a))意即可為公眾可取得並所知
: 悉或使用，案例:" Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644
: (Fed. Cir. 1986). 如未謹慎的嘗試保持其隱密性，則其知識或使用則被視為可為公眾所
: 取得者。案例:W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ
: 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
一點淺見
statutory language這邊比較好看懂的解釋應該是"法條中的用語"
因為指的是102(a)法條中出現的字
: See MPEP § 2128 - § 2128.02 for case law concerning public accessibility of
: publications.
: 關於公眾可取得性的判例可見MPEP § 2128 - § 2128.02
: Another's Sale of a Product Made by a Secret Process Can Be a 35 U.S.C.
: 102(a) Public Use if the Process Can Be Determined by Examining the Product
: 他方販售利用一祕密製程製造的產品，若其製程係可透過產品的審視而被知悉，則其製程
: 得視為35 U.S.C. 102(a)之 為公眾所使用者。
: "The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing
: articles for commercial purposes is a public use." But a secret use of the
: process coupled with the sale of the product does not result in a public use
: of the process unless the public could learn the claimed process by examining
: the product. Therefore, secret use of a process by another, even if the
: product is commercially sold, cannot result in a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
: 102(a) if an examination of the product would not reveal the process. Id.
: 其對一已列入權利項製程之非祕密使用 – 在製造用品以供商業販售中之普遍做法得視為
: 為公眾所使用者。除非公眾可以透過對產品的審視而得知已列入權利項之製程，否則和祕
: 密製程偶合之商品銷售係不被視為公眾之使用。如並不能透過該產品得知其產程，即使該
: 產品被商業的販售，其製程被他方祕密的使用並不能據35U.S.C. 102(a) 以核駁之。
在一般情況下為了商業目的製造物體而以非秘密的方式使用被申請權利保護的製程，
為公開使用。但是秘密的使用該製程並銷售製品並不會導致公開使用該製程，除非
公眾可以藉由檢視該產品得知該被申請權利保護的製程為何。因此，即使他人秘密的
使用同一製程，而且即使製品已被商業銷售，只要檢視該製品無法得知製程為何，仍
不會因此導致根據35U.S.C. 102(a)的核駁，案例同上。
這裡主要講的是他人即使實施了發明人申請專利中的製程
仍有可能不被視為公開使用的證據
: II. "IN THIS COUNTRY"
: “於本國內”
: Only Knowledge or Use in the U.S. Can Be Used in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Rejection
: 只有於美國內知悉或使用方能被U.S.C 102(a) 據以核駁。
: The knowledge or use relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection must be
: knowledge or use "in this country." Prior knowledge or use which is not
: present in the United States, even if widespread in a foreign country, cannot
: be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d
: 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958). Note that the changes made to 35 U.S.C. 104 by
: NAFTA (Public Law 103-182) and Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law
: 103-465) do not modify the meaning of "in this country" as used in 35 U.S.C.
: 102(a) and thus "in this country" still means in the United States for
: purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejections.
: 必需為於本國內之知悉或使用，方可據35 U.S.C 102(a)中之知悉或使以核駁之。即使於
: 國外廣為散佈，只要其非於美國內所知悉或使用，則不得據35 U.S. 102(a) 為核駁之基
: 礎。案例: In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958)。另外，需注意
: 35 U.S. 104之改變係因為NAFTA (Public Law 103-182)及Uruguay Round Agreements
: Act (Public Law 103-465) ，其二未修正同於35 U.S.C. 102(a)中出現之”於本國內”
: 一詞之意，故據35 U.S.C. 102(a)為由之核駁中，“於本國內”之意仍指於美國內。
這裡要注意的是102(a)有兩種情況可以核駁
before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent
1. known or used by others in this country
2. patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country
2的情況在外國發生也可以作為102(a)核駁的依據
所以這一段的仍是接著上面在講1的情況
: III. "BY OTHERS" “被他眾”
: "Others" Means Any Combination of Authors or Inventors Different Than the
: Inventive Entity
: “他眾”是指任何著作人或發明人之結合，和發明個體不同。
: The term "others" in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different
: from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be
: "by others." This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior
: art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge
: and use. Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) "would negate the one
: year [grace] period afforded under § 102(b)." In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215
: USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).
: 在35 U.S.C. 102(a)中，“他眾”一詞代表任何個體，其係與發明個體相異者。其個體只
: 需要其中一人相異則可為"被他眾"。這在任何種類的 可於35 U.S.C. 102(a)下之公開刊
: 物及公眾所知悉及使用，及被列為引用資料之先前技藝及均適用。根據§ 102(b)，任何
: 其他35 U.S.C. 102(a)之闡明不能否定其給予的一年優 _ 期。" In re Katz, 687 F.2d
"Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) "這邊可能要找In re Katz這個
案例來看，案例中整段是
(上接102(a))
It may not be readily apparent from the statutory language that a printed
publication cannot stand as a reference under § 102(a) unless it is
describing the work of another. A literal reading might appear to make a
prior patent or printed publication "prior art" even though the disclosure is
that of the applicant's own work. However, such an interpretation of this
section of the statute would negate the one year period afforded under §
102(b) during which an inventor is allowed to perfect, develop and
apply for a patent on his invention and publish descriptions of it if he
wishes. Illinois Tool v. Solo Cup Co., 461 F.2d 265, 172 USPQ 385 (CA 7),
cert. denied, 407 U.S. 916, 92 S.Ct. 2441, 32 L.Ed.2d 691 (1972).
字面上的解讀(102(a))可能會認為先前的專利或公開刊物會是前案，即使其中揭露的
內容是申請人自己的成果，然而這樣的解讀會違背102(b)所提供的申請日前ㄧ年內的
優惠期間
102(a)這裡說的publication如果描述的是申請人的成果，則有102(b)內的ㄧ年優惠
期限，在此期間發明人可允許去根據他的意願改良、開發和申請專利保護其發明
但是即使著作描述申請人的成果，著作者和發明人不同-相差最少一人-該怎麼辦?
下面有進一步解釋
: 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).
: IV. "PATENTED IN THIS OR A FOREIGN COUNTRY"
: 在本國及異國之已取得之專利。
: See MPEP § 2126 for information on the use of secret patents as prior art.
: 利用祕密專利作為先前技藝之資料，見MPEP § 2126 。
: ======================================================
: 2132.01 Publications as 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Prior Art
: ======================================================
: 如 35 U.S.C. 102(a) 所述之先前技藝
: 35 U.S.C. 102(a) PRIMA FACIE CASE IS ESTABLISHED IF REFERENCE PUBLICATION IS
: "BY OTHERS"
: 35U.S.C 102(a) 若引證資料是”被他眾” 所發佈，則初步現證係被確立。
: A prima facie case is made out under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) if, within 1 year of
: the filing date, the invention, or an obvious variant thereof, is described
: in a "printed publication" whose authorship differs in any way from the
: inventive entity unless it is stated within the publication itself that the
: publication is describing the applicant's work. In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215
: USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP § 2128 for case law on what constitutes a
: "printed publication." Note that when the reference is a U.S. patent
: published within the year prior to the application filing date, a 35 U.S.C.
: 102(e) rejection should be made. See MPEP § 2136 - § 2136.05 for case law
: dealing with 102(e).
: 如由申請日起一年內，在印刷刊物中敍有該發明或其顯而易見之相異形態，而且文章之著
: 作者係與發明之個體相異者(無論其任何形態的相異)，除非其刊物中有註明其刊物是敍述
: 申請人之成果，否則根據35 U.S.C. 102(a)，初步現證成立，案例，In re Katz, 687
: F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).”印刷刊物組成之判例，見MPEP § 2128 。注意
: ，當其引證資料是一已公開之美國專利，並其於申請日前一年內公開，基於35 U.S.C.
: 102(e)，其將被據以核駁。102(e)之判例，見MPEP § 2136 - § 2136.05。
: APPLICANT CAN REBUT PRIMA FACIE CASE BY SHOWING REFERENCE'S DISCLOSURE WAS
: DERIVED FROM APPLICANT'S OWN WORK
: 當申請人表達對引證資料的揭露係由申請人之己方之作品而衍生的，申請人得據以對初步
: 現證提出反證。
: Applicant's disclosure of his or her own work within the year before the
: application filing date cannot be used against him or her under 35 U.S.C.
: 102(a). In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) (discussed below).
: Therefore, where the applicant is one of the co-authors of a publication
: cited against his or her application, the publication may be removed as a
: reference by the filing of affidavits made out by the other authors
: establishing that the relevant portions of the publication originated with,
: or were obtained from, applicant. Such affidavits are called disclaiming
: affidavits. Ex parte Hirschler, 110 USPQ 384 (Bd. App. 1952). The rejection
: can also be overcome by submission of a specific declaration by the applicant
: establishing that the article is describing applicant's own work. In re Katz,
: 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982). However, if there is evidence that the
: co-author has refused to disclaim inventorship and believes himself or
: herself to be an inventor, applicant's affidavit will not be enough to
: establish that applicant is the sole inventor and the rejection will stand.
: Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1982) (discussed below).
: It is also possible to overcome the rejection by adding the coauthors as
: inventors to the application if the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 116, third
: paragraph are met. In re Searles, 422 F.2d 431, 164 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1970).
: 申請人在申請日前一年內對他/她已方之作品之揭露不得引用35 U.S.C. 102(a)對抗之。
: In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) (在以下會作討論。)因此，當申
: 請人為 被引作其申請案之對抗刊物 之共同創作人之一時，而當其他創作人以宣誓書確立
: 其刊物相對比例之部份係由申請人所原創者或從申請人所取得者，其刊物得從引證資料中
: 移除。而其宣誓書係名為”放棄權利誓約”。 Ex parte Hirschler, 110 USPQ 384
: (Bd. App. 1952)。另外，申請人亦可遞呈一明確的聲明以確立其文章實為敍述己方之創
: 作，亦可據而克服其核駁。In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)。然
: 而，若有證據顯示其共同著作人已拒絶放棄其發明人之資格及相信其己方方為發明人，則
: 申請人之宣誓不足以確立其為獨立發明人，故其核駁會維持原狀。Ex parte Kroger,
: 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1982)（將於以下部份討論）。若合乎35 U.S.C.
: 116, third paragraph之要求，透過加入其共同著作人為其申請案之發明人，其核駁亦可
: 能被克服。In re Searles, 422 F.2d 431, 164 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1970).
: In In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982), Katz stated in a
: declaration that the coauthors of the publication, Chiorazzi and Eshhar,
: "were students working under the direction and supervision of the inventor,
: Dr. David H. Katz." The court held that this declaration, in combination with
: the fact that the publication was a research paper, was enough to establish
: Katz as the sole inventor and that the work described in the publication was
: his own. In research papers, students involved only with assay and testing
: are normally listed as coauthors but are not considered co-inventors.
: 在Katz 案中( In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982),)，Katz 在一聲
: 明中指出，該刊物的同共著作人，Chiorazzi 及 Eshhar為Dr. David H. Katz之學生，其
: 二人在Katz 手下工作並接受其指導及監管。法院認為此聲明在加入考量了以下事實後，
: 係足以確認Katz為一獨立發明人，以及刊物中之作品為出自其已方。在研究論文的狀況中
: ，學生係只涉及化驗及測試，其通常會被名列為同共著作人，但不會將其考慮為一共同發
: 明人。
: In Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1982), Kroger,
: Knaster and others were listed as authors on an article on photovoltaic power
: generation. The article was used to reject the claims of an application
: listing Kroger and Rod as inventors. Kroger and Rod submitted affidavits
: declaring themselves to be the inventors. The affidavits also stated that
: Knaster merely carried out assignments and worked under the supervision and
: direction of Kroger. The Board stated that if this were the only evidence in
: the case, it would be established, under In re Katz, that Kroger and Rod were
: the only inventors. However, in this case, there was evidence that Knaster
: had refused to sign an affidavit disclaiming inventorship and Knaster had
: introduced evidence into the case in the form of a letter to the PTO in which
: he alleged that he was a co-inventor. The Board held that the evidence had
: not been fully developed enough to overcome the rejection. Note that the
: rejection had been made under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) but the Board treated the
: issue the same as if it had arisen under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). See also case law
: dealing with overcoming 102(e) rejections as presented in MPEP § 2136.05.
: Many of the issues are the same.
: 在Kroger 案中，In Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter.
: 1982), Kroger, Knaster和其他人在一篇光電能產生之文章係名列著作人。其文章係被用
: 以核駁一以Kroger 和Rod為發明人之申請案之權利項。Kroger 和Rod提交一宣誓書以宣稱
: 他們為發明人。其宣誓書中亦指出Knaster不過是被指示以執行而已，且其係於Kroger 下
: 工作並且受到其指導及監督。庭上指出，要是其為唯一的證據的話，在Katz案中，
: Kroger 和Rod為唯一發明人之事應已被確立。然而，於此案中，其有證據指出Knaster 曾
: 拒絶簽處誓約以放棄其發明人之資格，及Knaster已利用書信的方式向PTO指出此案之證據
: ，其信中主張其已為一共同發明人。庭上指出其證據(指Kroger 和Rod提交之宣誓書)係不
: 足 以克服其核駁。注意其核駁係基於35 U.S.C 102(f)所作，但庭上認為其狀況應否同時
: 適用35 U.S.C 102(a)。觀如MPEP § 2136.05.中出現，所克服102(e)核駁的判例，其中
: 數項內容為相同者。
這裡主要說Kroger案中和Katz案的不同
The board應該是the Patent and Trademark Office Board of Appeals
-PTO上訴委員會
所以白色的部份我是翻成
"上訴委員會指出假若該宣誓書為本案唯一的證據，則根據Katz案的判決，Kroger和Rod
會被視為唯一的發明人 (或是 兩人為唯一發明人之事會被確立)
但是本案仍有證據顯示Knaster拒絕簽署一誓書放棄其發明人資格，並且Knaster還提供
一份他寄給PTO，聲稱他是共同發明人的信件作為本案的證據"
這裡Katz案是申請人的研究論文先發表 被拿來當作前案 因為裡面作者多列兩個人
但是Katz送了一份聲明說這兩個人是他的學生 只是負責化驗及測試
(跟宣誓書不同是Katz除了聲明外並沒有任何其他證據支持)
上訴委員會說這不足以當成當是唯一發明人的證據
要Katz提供這兩人放棄發明權的宣誓書
但是上訴法院多數法官則在沒有其他證據的情況下
判決上訴委員會應根據是否有合理的證據支持申請人的立場來判斷
因為研究報告的確會列尚非發明人的學生做為著作人 而該著作是研究報告
根據這些紀錄 上訴委員會不需去多餘的懷疑申請人的看法是否被共同著作人接受
Kroger案就不同了 除了兩個申請人的宣誓書外
沒被列發明人的Knaster也出來要求他的發明人資格
由於衝突的證據出現
所以申請專利的發明人與這三人的共同著作中描述的成果內容的發明人不同
這三者(還有他人列為著作者)的共同著作 可視為102(a)核駁前案
: A 37 CFR 1.131 AFFIDAVIT CAN BE USED TO OVERCOME A 35 U.S.C. 102(a) REJECTION
: 一據37 CFR 1.131提出的宣誓書可被利用以克服35 U.S.C. 102(a)之核駁。
: When the reference is not a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), (c), or
: (d), applicant can overcome the rejection by swearing back of the reference
: through the submission of an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131. In re Foster, 343
: F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965). If the reference is disclosing
: applicant's own work as derived from him or her, applicant may submit either
: a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit to antedate the reference or a 37 CFR 1.132
: affidavit to show derivation of the reference subject matter from applicant
: and invention by applicant. In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 161 USPQ 294 (CCPA
: 1969). See MPEP § 715 for more information on when an affidavit under 37 CFR
: 1.131 can be used to overcome a reference and what evidence is required.
: 當其引證資料非為35 U.S.C. 102(b), (c), or (d),之法規所禁止時，申請人能夠基於
: 37 CFR 1.131提交一宣誓書並宣誓以溯往並克服對其刊物之核駁。In re Foster, 343
: F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965).若其引證資料揭露了申請人之作品為源自他己，
: 則申請人得基於37 CFR 1.131或 37 CFR 1.132以提交宣誓書以讓專利申請日往前移。
這裡antedate並不是讓專利申請日往前移
而是使102(a)核駁的
1.before the invention要件因為宣誓書讓發明日比前案要早而消失 (先發明主義)
但是申請日不變
2.by others要件不成立 前案內容為申請人發明或導自於其發明
變成判斷其他法條 如102(b)的申請日前一年內優惠期是否過期
: ===========================以上=================================
: 請各前輩給評指導 感謝
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.167.199.159