推 piglauhk:哪一國不用。。 04/29 21:57
→ conner:台灣也要嗎? 說明書有寫就可以還是一定要圖式有支持? 04/29 22:03
→ fermion:不一定,但大部份情況是要有圖支持. 04/29 22:04
37 CFR 1.83: Content of Drawing
(a)
The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of
the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features
disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed
illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the
invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a
graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled
rectangular box). In addition, tables and sequence listings that are
included in the specification are, except for applications filed under
35 U.S.C. 371, not permitted to be included in the drawings.
(c)
Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with
the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner
shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not
less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof.
Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).
37 CFR 1.81 (d)
Drawings submitted after the filing date of the application may not be
used to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of
an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, or to
supplement the original disclosure thereof for the purpose of
interpretation of the scope of any claim.
除非說明書說地夠清楚了，要不然要補充圖式是很困難的
而1.83(a)規定了想寫進claim的發明(能用圖表示的)都要畫成圖
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 49.159.149.114
※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Patent/M.1398782310.A.DB8.html
→ kaikai1112:可是我印象中好像看過沒圖式的化學案阿...... 04/29 22:45
→ kaikai1112:會走路的 MPEP 太神了............(跪拜......) 04/29 22:49
推 dakkk:解決我的疑惑 最近被客戶問可不可以加圖=.= 04/29 22:58
推 madgame:…是 ipme 神啦！！！ 04/30 00:20
推 fermion:很多方法專利也沒圖啊. (盡信書？) 04/30 04:29
推 fermion:37 CFR 1.183... 04/30 04:32
推 kaikai1112:所以結論還是有領域別的問題?? 至少在機構案像原po說的 04/30 07:24
→ deathcustom:only方法的基本上可以不用圖啊(你flow chart跟說明書 04/30 08:30
→ deathcustom:其實沒兩樣..依據IUPAC命名規則的化學案基本上也不用 04/30 08:31
→ deathcustom:所以主要在電路與機構案(裝置的耦接、作動與訊號傳遞) 04/30 08:31
→ deathcustom:37 CFR那可不只是一本書，他是有法律效力的，所以要 04/30 08:33
→ deathcustom:認真看待他訂的規則 04/30 08:33
→ deathcustom:如果我提MPEP(非判例段)您可以說我盡信書(不如無書) 04/30 08:34
→ deathcustom:蓋因MPEP基本上沒有法律規範的效力，但是CFR雖然不是 04/30 08:35
→ deathcustom:USC，仍然具有法律規範地效力唷 04/30 08:35
推 fermion:推薦你看 37 CFR 1.183 04/30 08:54
推 fermion:再推薦你看 5 USC 553 04/30 09:27
推 madgame:從 35 USC 113 的文字就可以看出圖式不一定是必要的，所以 04/30 11:42
→ madgame:我一直是把 37 CFR 1.83a 當成不小心寫太嚴的規定 04/30 11:42