摘要
专利申请的创造性审查由于不可避免的主观因素,常常成为申请人与审查部门之间分歧的焦点。“车喇叭”申请案正是由创造性分歧而展开。该案例的专利申请在历经驳回、复审维持驳回、一审维持复审之后,在最终的终审判决中没有支持复审决定和一审判决,反映了最高人民法院对于创造性判断的态度和基准,对于创造性分析具有较强的指导意义。针对该案例,主要讨论了有关含糊公开内容的解读、对比文件的结合启示,以及有关最接近现有技术的确定等问题。
The inventiveness examination of a patent application often becomes a focal point of disagreement between the applicant and the examination department due to inevitable subjective factors.Discussion on inventive step analysis is performed based on an application case claiming a car horn.In this case,after going through rejection,re-examination and the first instance,the patent application did not support the reexamination decision and the first instance judgment in the final judgment,which reflects the attitude and benchmark of the Supreme People’s Court towards inventiveness judgment and has strong guiding significance for inventive step analysis.Regarding this case,this paper mainly discusses the interpretation of ambiguous public content,the combination of reference documents,and the determination of the closest prior art.
作者
周良玉
ZHOU Liang-yu(Beijing E-Tone Intellectual Property Firm,Beijing 100190,China)
出处
《专利代理》
2025年第4期47-53,共7页
Patent Agency
关键词
创造性
技术启示
技术问题
最接近的现有技术
inventive step
technical inspiration
technical problem
the closest prior art
