期刊文献+

探析方法特征表征产品权利要求保护范围的界定——兼论其新颖性和创造性的审查

Analysis on the Definition of the Scope of Protection of Product Claims Characterized by Method Characteristics——On the Examination of Its Novelty and Creativity
下载PDF
导出
摘要 在方法权利要求具备新颖性和创造性的前提下,方法特征表征产品权利要求保护范围的准确界定将影响产品权利要求新颖性和创造性的判断。本研究结合《指南》中的相关规定以及相关典型案例,梳理方法表征产品权利要求保护范围的界定、新颖性和创造性审查的关键环节,以厘清方法特征表征产品权利要求新颖性和创造性的审查思路,为方法特征表征产品权利要求的审查提供参考。 On the premise that the method claims are novel and inventive, the accurate definition of the protection scope of the product claims that characterize the method features will affect the judgment of the novelty and inventive step of the product claims. Combining the relevant provisions in the Guidelines and relevant typical cases, this paper sorts out the key links in the definition of the protection scope、the examination of novelty and inventive step of product claims defined by method Characterization, so as to clarify the examination ideas for novelty and inventivity of product claims,in the hope of providing a reference in judging the novelty and inventivity of product clamins defined by method charactirization..
作者 刘春磊 郑琼娟 LIU Chunlei;ZHENG Qiongjuan(Patent Examination Cooperation(Guangzhou)Center of the Patent Office,Guangzhou 510655,China)
出处 《河南科技》 2022年第18期128-133,共6页 Henan Science and Technology
关键词 方法特征表征 产品权利要求 保护范围 method characterization product claim protection scope
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献11

  • 1南条雅裕.プロダクト?パィ?プロゼス?クレ-ムの榷利解釈[J].パテント,2002,Vol.55,No.5.
  • 2美国第35法典第112条第2段.
  • 3Ah Law. Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc. [ EB/OL]. [ 2009 -6 -10]. http://www. altlaw. org/vl/cases/412144.
  • 4Alt Law. Atlantic Thermoplastics Co. v. Faytex Corp. [ EB/OL]. [2009 -6 -10]. http://www. altlaw. org/vl/cases/413170.
  • 5United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz Inc. [ EB/OL ]. [ 2009 - 6 - 20 ]. http ://www. cafc. uscourts. gov/opinions/07 - 1400. pdf.
  • 6U.S. Supreme Court Cases. Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company, 93 U. S. 486(1876) [ EB/OL]. [2009 -6 - 18]. http:///supreme. justia.com/us/93/486/.
  • 7U.S. Supreme Court Cases. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Company V. Davis, 102 U. S. 222(1880) [ EB/OL]. [2009-6- 18]. http://supreme. justia. com/us/102/222/.
  • 8United States Patent and Trademark Office. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure :2113 [ EB/OL]. [ 2009 - 6 - 29 ]. http : //www. uspto. gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep. htm.
  • 9毛映红.小议“方法限定产品”专利权利要求的解释方法——从美国CAFC大法庭最新判决谈起[J].知识产权,2009,19(6):88-92. 被引量:7
  • 10田振,姚云.美国专利法判例选析 对方法限定的产品权利要求的解释[J].中国发明与专利,2011(1):106-109. 被引量:2

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部