Re: 參酌它國審查意見不妥嗎？

[colinh (ColinH)]

※ 引述《gaoba (gaoba)》之銘言：
: 關於引用國外OA內容
: 剛好前陣子處理一個馬來西亞申請案的OA，內容很短，就貼上來給大家參考吧
: Your corresponding United States patent no. US X,XXX,XXX B2 has been
: granted with claims which are narrower in scope than the present claims
: of your Malaysian application, and certain prior art listed on the patent
: was considered relevant during prosecution.  It therefore appears, prima
: facie, that your present claims are not novel and/or inventive as
: required by sections 14 and 15 having regard to that prior art and/or do
: not clearly define the invention in terms of the technical features as
: required by [Reg. 13(1) and 13(5)].
: 完全不抄US OA，沒有別的理由，就是叫你照著修
: 這樣算不算有失國格？  要不要寫信給馬來西亞的專利局局長幹譙一下？
: 還是申復：請問馬來西亞是美國的一州嗎
: ps.拜託不要戰國家

就事論事 戰人不戰國家

prima facie這一段的意思就是指
表面上看起來美國專利會准許是因為申請人將claim範圍改小
因此舉證的責任由馬來西亞審查委員移到申請人這邊
並不代表要求claim修到一樣

要注意的是
1. 這個發出的文件沒列出前案和審查理由 (這點我個人很不能接受)
2. 後面引用的條文是馬來西亞的條文
(這點似乎比某些人強 要人家照修claim連條文都沒寫)
不過馬來西亞這份文件也並沒有很肯定的說是以哪一條核駁
很顯然連美國申請案審查歷史都沒有看
他只是看最後issue的專利來決定claim範圍表面上看起來不同 要求申請人說明或修改
最後的引用條文部分也是以不確定方式寫的
"因此看起來, 表面上, 您所申請的claim因為
 (美國專利審查過程的)前案而缺乏14和15條要求的新穎性以及/或是發明性,
 以及/或是 缺乏Reg. 13(1) and 13(5) 要求的明確定義發明技術特徵"

我是有點懷疑馬來西亞可以核准專利的claim不同作為核駁理由
(而且還是prima facie case)
以下是我查的馬來西亞專利法
我也很想請問台灣有馬來西亞下面這種法源依據嗎?
http://www.myipo.gov.my/acts/Patents.pdf

Section 14. Novelty.
(1) An invention is new if it is not anticipated by
prior art.
(2) Prior art shall consist of--
(a) everything disclosed to the public, anywhere in the world, by written
publication, by oral disclosure, by use or in any other way, prior to the
priority date of the patent application claiming the invention;
[Am. Act A648: s.8; Am. Act A863: s.6]
(b) the contents of a domestic patent application having an earlier priority
date than the patent application referred to in paragraph (a) to the extent
that such contents are included in the patent granted on the basis of the
said domestic patent application.
[Am. Act A648: s.8; Am. Act A863: s.6]

馬來西亞是比絕對新穎性更嚴的國家
14(2)(b)寫到的是就算你在馬來西亞先申請
但是只要有一篇馬來西亞專利申請案的優先權日比你最早申請日或優先權日還早
就可以當前案
(台灣擬制新穎性可不是用國內申請前案的優先權日來當前案代表日比對)
更正: 上面是錯誤的
台灣專利法只有寫申請在先而在後公開:

第二十三條　申請專利之發明，與申請在先而在其申請後始公開或公告之發明或新型專利
申請案所附說明書或圖式載明之內容相同者，不得取得發明專利。但其申請人與申請在先
之發明或新型專利申請案之申請人相同者，不在此限。

但是審查基準是以優先權日作前案申請日來判斷,
前提跟馬來西亞一樣是前案要在國內申請

審查基準第三章　專利要件
2.7.2引證文件
審查擬制喪失新穎性時，引證文件必須為申請在先而在後申請案申請日之後始公開或公告
之發明或新型先申請案。認定先申請案是否得作為引證文件的有關事項如下：
...
(2)先申請案之申請日（主張優先權者為優先權日）必須早於後申請案之申請日（主張優
先權者為優先權日），且應在該後申請案申請日之後公開或公告。先申請案於審查當時尚
未公開或公告者，不得作為引證文件。
...
(4)先申請案主張國際優先權或國內優先權者，對於已揭露於優先權基礎案及先申請案說
明書全文中之發明或新型，認定申請先、後的時點應為該先申請案之優先權日；對於僅揭
露於先申請案說明書全文但未揭露於優先權基礎案之發明或新型，認定申請先、後的時點
應為該先申請案之申請日。
(5)先申請案主張國內優先權者，優先權基礎案於申請之次日起滿十五個月視為撤回，對
於僅揭露於優先權基礎案但未揭露於先申請案之發明或新型，由於該發明或新型並未經公
告或公開，故不得作為審查擬制喪失新穎性之引證文件。


Section 29A. Request for substantive examination or modified substantive
examination.

申請實審

(1) If an application for a patent has been examined under section 29 and
is not withdrawn or refused, the applicant shall file, within the
prescribed period, a request for a substantive examination of the application.

如果通過section 29的初步審查 申請人應在規定的期限內提出要求實審

(2) If a patent or other title of industrial property protection has been
granted to the applicant or his predecessor in title in a prescribed
country outside Malaysia or under a prescribed treaty or Convention for an
invention which is the same or essentially the same as the invention claimed
in the application, the applicant may, instead of requesting for a
substantive examination, request for a modified substantive examination.

如果申請人在規定的國家已申請相同發明的專利獲准 可以提出簡化實審

(3) A request for a substantive examination or a modified substantive
examination shall be made in the prescribed form and shall not be deemed
to have been filed until the prescribed fee has been paid to the Registrar
and any other prescribed requirement has been complied with.

申請實審或簡化實審要依規定格式申請繳費

(4) The Registrar may require the applicant to provide, at the time of
filing a request for a substantive examination -
(a) any prescribed information or prescribed supporting document concerning
the filing of any application for a patent or other title of industrial
property protection filed outside Malaysia by such applicant or his
predecessor in title with a national, regional or international industrial
property office;
(b) any prescribed information concerning the results of any
search or examination carried out by an International Searching Authority
under the Patent Cooperation Treaty, relating to the same or essentially the
same invention as that claimed in the application for which the request for a
substantive examination is being filed.

登記官可以要求申請人在請求實審時提供
a.有關申請人在馬來西亞國外申請的任何專利保護的任何規定資訊或輔助文件
b.有關任何簽訂PCT的國際檢索單位, 所作出對與該馬來西亞申請實審案相同的發明
的檢索或是審查結果,

(5) If the applicant -
(a) fails to file either a request under subsection
(1) for a substantive examination or a request under subsection
(2) for a modified substantive examination; or
(b) fails to provide the information or document referred to in subsection
(4) as required by the Registrar, within the prescribed period, the
application for a patent shall, subject to subsection (6), be deemed
to be withdrawn at the end of that period.

沒有提交請求實審或簡化實審, 或是沒有提交上一段登記官可以要求提供的文件
超過規定時間後, 申請案會被視為放棄

(6) Notwithstanding subsection (5), the Registrar may, upon the request of
the applicant, grant a deferment of the filing of a request for examination
referred to in subsection (1) or (2) or a deferment of the provision of the
information or document referred to in subsection (4), and such deferment may
be granted only on the grounds that -
(a) the patent or title referred to in subsection (2) has not been granted or
is not available; or
(b) the information or document referred to in subsection (4) would not be
available, by the expiration of the prescribed period for the filing of a
request under subsection (1) or (2).

在以下情況下, 申請人可以向登記官提出延期申請實審,
避免超過規定期間沒有提出申請實審
a. 申請人在國外申請的專利沒過 所以不能提簡化實審
b. 在申請實審規定期間到期時, 國外檢索單位的檢索或審查結果還無法取得

馬來西亞專利規定
http://www.myipo.gov.my/acts/Patent%20Regulations%201986.pdf

Regulation 27C. Substantive examination. 實審
...
(2) For the purpose of determining whether the application complies with the
substantive requirements, in particular sections 14 and 15 of the Act, the
Examiner shall search such documents as the Registrar deems necessary.
(3) Upon receipt of the Examiner's report under section 30(1) (b) of the Act,
the Registrar may request the Examiner to conduct a further search or other
investigation to determine whether the requirements of sections 14 and 15 of
the Ad have been satisfied and subregulation (2) shall apply in relation to
such further search or other investigation.
(4) Where section 30 (3) of the Act applies, the Registrar shall send a copy
of the Examiner's report to the applicant and the applicant shall make any
observation on such report or any amendment to the application or both
within three months from the date of mailing of the report.
(5) Where the applicant makes any observation on the Examiner's report or
any amendment to the application or both within the prescribed period, the
Registrar shall refer them to the Examiner who shall report his determination
to the Registrar.

2. 為了決定申請案是否符合可專利要件, 審查官要尋找登記官認為需要的文件
3. 收到審查官的報告後, 登記官可以要求審查官進行進一步的搜尋或是調查, 決定
專利要件是否被滿足
4. 當收到審查官的報告時, 申請人應在三個月內表示對報告的意見或是提出修正
5. 當申請人做出意見或修正, 登記官應通知審查官, 審查官應報告其決定

Regulation 27D. Modified substantive examination.  簡化實審
(原文這邊examination寫成exaggeration, 法規公告文都能錯字讓我有點傻眼)
...
(2) In addition, it shall also be a substantive requirement that the
description, claims and drawings of the invention claimed in the application,
whether as filed or as amended under the Act or these Regulations, apart from
matters of form, shall be the same or substantially the same as the
description, claims and drawings of the invention granted a patent or other
title of industrial property protection by the prescribed country or under
the prescribed treaty or Convention.
....(後面3, 4, 5, 6條同27C 實審 2, 3, 4, 5條)

簡化實審的實質要件還另外包括申請案請求發明的說明書, claim, 圖示
要與同發明被核准的國外專利案的說明書, claim, 圖示相同或實質相同

如果你提出的是簡化實審
馬來西亞官方是有權要求claim, 說明書, 圖示修成一樣的
法源依據就是馬來西亞專利法(Patent Act) section 29



另外以下純屬個人看法
如果TIPO會有人因為這樣的通知就認為把claim修到跟美國一樣是世界潮流
而無視法源/法規/立法精神上的不同
我也只能體會原來是這樣的人在等著copy美國OA
(連參考或抄都算不上 反正連花點時間去看懂都沒有嘛)
還真懷疑他們是否能從中/英文的claim加上各國專利法規上的差異
去識別claim scope相不相同

還有講實在點台灣人在自己家裡先申請的專利
還要因為審查委員在等國外先審好才有動作
外國人比較晚在美國申請專利 卻因為美國審比較快先准了
還可以在台灣引用國外優先權 拿美國審查結果先比台灣人拿到專利
國內老是幹這種事是要談甚麼科技競爭力


--
任何科技的進步都有危險性, 火剛出現時也很危險,語言能力甚至更可怕。
直到今日, 上述兩者依舊不安全, 但人若沒了它們就不能為人。         -艾西莫夫


--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.167.203.82
→ escaflone:台灣擬制新穎性可不是用國內申請前案的優先權日來當
→ escaflone:前案代表日比對←這句可以進一步說明一下嗎？@.@|||
謝謝e兄指教, 之前我以為和美國一樣
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2136_03.htm
Reference's Foreign Priority Date Under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) and (f) Cannot
Be Used as the 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Reference Date

→ escaflone:另外，g兄應該不是tipo的人吧@.@
※ 編輯: colinh          來自: 118.167.203.82       (08/12 01:44)
→ escaflone:應該是說，TW專利法在法中的「申請在先」對主張優先權
→ escaflone:之先申請案，在認定上就會涉及優先權日，不過法條沒法
→ escaflone:寫到那麼細。對了，c兄的資料找得很齊，受教了<_ _>
推 hantang:強啊~~
→ gaoba:光是這些資料就應該要推了！！！！！
推 lkw:有關前案是用優先權日做依據還是只能用申請日，台灣美國規定不
→ lkw:同，前陣子剛好跟幾位同業討論這個問題，已有確定的結論，本想
→ lkw:PO文，後來就懶得打字，感謝這篇原po分享
推 yeaho:另外, 我相信IPO的審查人員很少有機會看到馬來西亞的審查意
→ yeaho:見, 他們大概不至於知道某些國家IPO也這麼做，所以就覺得理
→ yeaho:所當然, 就純粹審查人員個人的選擇罷了
推 kaikai1112:推樓上 個人是不反對引用國外見解
→ kaikai1112:但是至少翻一下 知道人家的理由 應不為過
→ kaikai1112:國外委員  就算是美國委員 亂審的大有人在
→ escaflone:y兄前兩週怎麼沒來戰國防役…XD
推 yeaho:因為我忙著跟美國鄉民戰IDS制度，這也算是沒有國格 (亂入)
→ yeaho:                                               ^的制度
推 kaikai1112:其實我覺得 IDS 是好制度耶 美國又不是有 IDS 就不檢索
→ kaikai1112:相關前案收集越多 對審查越好