Re: [問題] 美國案的問題

[deathcustom (litron-intl)]

※ 引述《ides13 (鬼)》之銘言：
: 102(f)的重點在於，誰才是發明人。即使他的發明最後被證實為不具新穎性。
: 102(f)與日期無關，重點在於“出處及來源”。
: 只要abc的發明，是原發明人自己想出來的，即便最後被證實abc為已知的，
: 那麼abc也還是abcd的發明人，他們對abcd還是有智能性的貢獻，要克服習知參考文獻
: ，僅需要一份宣誓書，即足夠克服102(f)的拒絕理由。
: MPEP 2317
: “[a] prior art reference that is not a statutory bar may be overcome by two
: generally recognized methods”: an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131, or an
: affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 “showing that the relevant disclosure is a
: description of the applicant’s own work.”
: 35 U.S.C. 102(f) “does not require an inquiry into the relative dates of a
: reference and the application”, and therefore may be applicable where
: subsections (a) and (e) are not available for references.
: The party or parties executing an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 are
: presumed to be the inventors. Driscoll v. Cebalo, 5 USPQ2d 1477, 1481 (Bd.
: Pat. Inter. 1982); In re DeBaun, 687 F.2d 459, 463, 214 USPQ 933, 936 (CCPA
: 1982)

No, I don't agree with you at this issue.

35 USC 102 (f) and its relavent rules are sections to define "who is the
inventor in reality." If a reference is a description of one party's own work,
said party can submit an affidavit or statement to declare that he is the
real inventor. If a reference is filed or disclosed later than one party's
conception, said party can submit an affidavit or statement to declare he/she
make that conception earlier.

In the case we discuss,however, the one did'nt make ABCD conception but the
attorney did. In theorem, the one shall not overcome the bar by submitting
documents under 37 CFR 1.131/1.132. In practice, however, it's hard to prove
that the one only make ABC conception.

The way overcoming the prior art by submitting said affidavit is based on the
"Good Faith". That is, if one didn't make the invention, in this case, ABCD as
a whole, himself, he should be resposible for his deception.

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 114.36.50.34
※ 編輯: deathcustom     來自: 114.36.50.34         (12/20 17:45)
→ deathcustom:我這篇純就法條的概念，因為實務上要舉發幾乎不可能
→ deathcustom:更別提在prosecution中，你只要提affidavit審委就會信
→ deathcustom:但是同樣的你要冒風險如果未來attorney窩裡反......
推 ides13:小弟認為ABCD中的D雖然是patent attorney提供的建議，但原
→ ides13:原發明人還是貢獻了ABC，即使原發明人自己承認他們僅有
→ ides13:發明ABC，也不會因ABC最後被證實是習知技術，就應該要將
→ ides13:原發明人排除於ABCD的發明之外。
→ ides13:宣誓書的意義在於，發明人宣誓ABC是自己發明的，不是參考
→ ides13:其他文件而發明的。
→ deathcustom:nonono, 如果ABC皆為習知且組合為顯而易知，無法用aff
→ deathcustom:去克服，aff法理上可以克服的態樣我有標色
→ deathcustom:1. 參考文獻其中之一比自己還要晚 2. 參考文獻其中之
→ deathcustom:一係為發明人之發明......(使之適用102(b))
→ VanDeLord:同意i大在這部份的論點
→ VanDeLord:假設ABC符合 Existence of Conception
→ VanDeLord:證明true inventor法官自己也說很難,只能證明是mis/non
推 madgame:這件事情應該理解成，發明人從代理人處得到建議
→ madgame:從而使得發明人完成了ABCD的conception
推 madgame:所以仍然屬於發明人保有intellectual domination的狀態
→ deathcustom:對，而要以m大的做法的話，就是回到2138.04的解讀
→ deathcustom:至於法官怎麼判讀，則要找案例來看了orz
推 piglauhk:D大 可以用一句說明結論嗎...<囧> 俺英文不好