簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 陳昱達
Yu-Ta, Chen
論文名稱： The Study of the Opinion Evolution of Teaching Away by Higher Federal Courts in the United States
The Study of the Opinion Evolution of Teaching Away by Higher Federal Courts in the United States
指導教授： 耿筠
Yun Ken
口試委員: 蔡鴻文
Hung-Wen Tsai
陳宥杉
Yu-Shan, Chen
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 應用科技學院 - 專利研究所
Graduate Institute of Patent
論文出版年： 2019
畢業學年度： 107
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 135
中文關鍵詞： 法律見解 、進步性（非顯而易見性） 、輔助性判斷因素 、反向教示
外文關鍵詞： legal opinion, nonobviousness, teaching away, secondary consideration
相關次數： 點閱：293  下載：3 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 利之適格性（本研究中特指美國專利）包含三個基本的要件：產業利用性、新穎性以及最重要且最容易成為訴訟標的的進步性。過去許多研究甚或訴訟亦關注於進步性的相關議題，且已經解決並更新許多法規或行政程序上的漏洞，也逐步改善美國從1994年至今的專利審查基準（MPEP）。其中，有一個不斷重覆出現並時常陷入爭議的議題引起我們的注意：反向教示。經調查，此一爭點至少出現在182個美國巡迴法院或最高法院的判決中（截至2017年11月1日止）。

    Westlaw是本研究主要的判決搜尋資料庫，我們藉由引證與相關性將前述的相關判決縮減至七個最具代表性的判決。本研究旨在找出過去判決中與「反向教示」有關的法律見解，並嘗試藉由整理這些法官的意見找出：如何定義一個先前技術是否有反向教示或其程度，以及法官的法律見解演進。

    經整理相關判決與法規，本研究得到三個主要的結果：(1)與輔助判斷因素相關的進步性判斷步驟；(2)自1994年以來，法律見解的演進與相關法規條文的逐步建構；(3)與反向教示相關的專利申請與侵權訴訟之判斷方式的建立。

    The patentability of a patent (a U.S. patent to be specific in the thesis) consists of three basic elements, that the patent has to be industrial applicable, novel and nonobvious and the most important as well as the most arguable and litigated subject matter would be the nonobviousness. There have been many theses, even more litigations, focusing on the topic, which helped us renovate the loopholes and leakages of the law and the MPEP throughout the years (1994-present). Among them, a highly mentioned and argued consideration has brought up to our interest: teaching away from prior art reference. The arguments have been found in at least 182 decisions (until Nov. 1st, 2017) in the higher courts in the United States.

    We use Westlaw as the main research database, and narrow down the pool with citations and relevancy to seven of the most representative cases. We analyzed the cases and organized the opinions and discussion of the judges. The thesis aims to find out the past verdicts of the issue so as to try to define to what extent an invention will be determined to be taught away from prior art and the opinion evolution of the judges.

    We have organized the cases as well as the references and concluded as follow:

    1. The fundamental steps of the determination of nonobviousness when it comes to secondary consideration related cases;
    2. The opinion revolution and the gradual construction of the regulations of teaching away from the selected seven cases (from 1994 to present); and,
    3. The establishment of the determination steps of applications and infringements related to teaching away.

    摘要 I Abstract II 誌謝 III Catalog IV Figure Catalog VII Table Catalog VIII Chapter 1 Introduction 1 1. Background 1 2. The Determination of Nonobviousness in the United States 2 I. The basic factual inquires of Graham v. John Deere Co. 2 II. Rationales to Support Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 103 2 III. Establishing a Prima Facie Case of Obviousness 5 3. Motivation and Purpose 7 Chapter 2 Literature Review 8 1. Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP)—2145 Consideration of Applicant’s Rebuttal Arguments 8 I. Argument Does Not Replace Evidence Where It Being Necessary 17 II. Arguing Additional Advantages or Latent Properties 17 III. Arguing That Prior Art Devices Are Not Physically Combinable 18 IV. Arguing Against References Individually 18 V. Arguing About the Number of References Combined 18 VI. Arguing Limitations Which Are Not Claimed 19 VII. Arguing Economic Infeasibility 19 VIII. Arguing About the Age of References 19 IX. Arguing That Prior Art Is Not analogous 19 X. Arguing Improper Rationales for Combining References 20 2. Are secondary considerations still secondary? 24 I. Defining the Evidentiary Value of Objective Indicia After Graham 25 II. KSR and the Rebuke of the Federal Circuit 26 III. Weighing the Graham Factors Post-KSR 27 IV. Conclusion 29 3. Selected Theses in Taiwan 31 Chapter 3 Research Methodology 32 1. The Choice of Database 32 I. Westlaw (the database of Thomson Reuters) 32 II. United States Courts 33 2. The Rule of Case Selection 34 I. The First Step: Selection of Case Pool 34 II. The Second Step: Manual Screening and Confirmation 35 III. The Third Step: Focused Cases Selection 37 IV. The Fourth Step: Deciding the Most Representative Cases 39 Chapter 4 Teaching Away Related Cases 41 1. In re Gurley, 1994 41 I. Background and Case Brief 41 II. Discussion 42 III. Opinion and Analysis 43 2. In re Gartside, 2000 45 I. Background and Case Brief 45 II. Discussion 53 III. Opinion and Analysis 54 3. In re Kahn, 2006 56 I. Background and Case Brief 56 II. Discussion 60 III. Opinion and Analysis 66 4. KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 2007 68 I. Background and Case Brief 68 II. Discussion 75 III. Opinion and Analysis 85 5. DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 2009 88 I. Background 88 II. Discussion 91 III. Opinion and Analysis 95 6. In re Mouttet, 2012 96 I. Background and Case Brief 96 II. Discussion 103 III. Opinion and Analysis 104 7. Meiresonne v. Google, Inc., 2017 106 I. Background 106 II. Discussion 108 III. Opinion and Analysis 111 Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusion 113 1. The Determination Steps of Nonobviousness with Secondary Consideration 113 2. The Opinion Evolution of the Courts 115 3. Conclusion 119 Reference 121

    Chinese References

    1. 余華，相關國家之威而鋼專利訴訟判決研析，智慧財產權月刊183期，2014年3月
    2. 鄭煜騰，美國專利法上化學發明之非顯而易知性研究，智慧財產權月刊153期，2011年9月
    3. 莊智惠，進步性判斷方式及論理之探討―以發明專利進步性審查基準修訂為例，智慧財產權月刊225期，2017年9月

    English References

    1. John Paul Putney, Are Secondary Considerations Still“Secondary”?: An Examination of Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness Five Years After KSR, Intellectual Property Brief, Volume 4, Issue 2, Article 5, Mar. 13th, 2013

    QR CODE