标题译完了 开始对本文下手 (对啦 我是米虫..) 参考了v大的意见. 小的会从2132开始住下. 一天一篇 约2个月该可译完2100这部 期间在译文上及TRIZ的学习上 希望各位高手出手从严指导 随着时间的过去 实力应会有所提升 虽然以我现在的程度不太可能 但小的我译完後 希望可以集束成小本 赚点小外快 用来请板上各位吃点好料 知恩图报阿 XD ========================= 2132 35 U.S.C. 102(a) ========================= 35 U.S.C. 102 Conditions for patentability; novelty and loss of right to patent. A person shall be entitled to a patent unless - (a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or 35 U.S.C 102. 可专利性之条件;新颖性及专利权之丧失，无下列情形之一者，得获得专 利： (a) 在专利申请人发明及申请之前，已在本国为他人习知或使用，或在国内外已获准专利 或在印刷刊物 上公开发表者，或 ----------------------------------------------------------- I. "KNOWN OR USED" 习知或使用 "Known or Used" Means Publicly Known or Used “习知或使用”意即为大众习知或使用 "The statutory language 'known or used by others in this country' (35 U.S.C. § 102(a)), means knowledge or use which is accessible to the public." Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The knowledge or use is accessible to the public if there has been no deliberate attempt to keep it secret. W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 法律用语”於国内为他人知悉或使用(35 U.S.C. § 102(a))意即可为公众可取得并所知 悉或使用，案例:" Carella v. Starlight Archery, 804 F.2d 135, 231 USPQ 644 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 如未谨慎的尝试保持其隐密性，则其知识或使用则被视为可为公众所 取得者。案例:W. L. Gore & Assoc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See MPEP § 2128 - § 2128.02 for case law concerning public accessibility of publications. 关於公众可取得性的判例可见MPEP § 2128 - § 2128.02 Another's Sale of a Product Made by a Secret Process Can Be a 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Public Use if the Process Can Be Determined by Examining the Product 他方贩售利用一秘密制程制造的产品，若其制程系可透过产品的审视而被知悉，则其制程 得视为35 U.S.C. 102(a)之 为公众所使用者。 "The nonsecret use of a claimed process in the usual course of producing articles for commercial purposes is a public use." But a secret use of the process coupled with the sale of the product does not result in a public use of the process unless the public could learn the claimed process by examining the product. Therefore, secret use of a process by another, even if the product is commercially sold, cannot result in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) if an examination of the product would not reveal the process. Id. 其对一已列入权利项制程之非秘密使用 – 在制造用品以供商业贩售中之普遍做法得视为 为公众所使用者。除非公众可以透过对产品的审视而得知已列入权利项之制程，否则和秘 密制程偶合之商品销售系不被视为公众之使用。如并不能透过该产品得知其产程，即使该 产品被商业的贩售，其制程被他方秘密的使用并不能据35U.S.C. 102(a) 以核驳之。 II. "IN THIS COUNTRY" “於本国内” Only Knowledge or Use in the U.S. Can Be Used in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Rejection 只有於美国内知悉或使用方能被U.S.C 102(a) 据以核驳。 The knowledge or use relied on in a 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection must be knowledge or use "in this country." Prior knowledge or use which is not present in the United States, even if widespread in a foreign country, cannot be the basis of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958). Note that the changes made to 35 U.S.C. 104 by NAFTA (Public Law 103-182) and Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465) do not modify the meaning of "in this country" as used in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and thus "in this country" still means in the United States for purposes of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejections. 必需为於本国内之知悉或使用，方可据35 U.S.C 102(a)中之知悉或使以核驳之。即使於 国外广为散布，只要其非於美国内所知悉或使用，则不得据35 U.S. 102(a) 为核驳之基 础。案例: In re Ekenstam, 256 F.2d 321, 118 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1958)。另外，需注意 35 U.S. 104之改变系因为NAFTA (Public Law 103-182)及Uruguay Round Agreements Act (Public Law 103-465) ，其二未修正同於35 U.S.C. 102(a)中出现之”於本国内” 一词之意，故据35 U.S.C. 102(a)为由之核驳中，“於本国内”之意仍指於美国内。 III. "BY OTHERS" “被他众” "Others" Means Any Combination of Authors or Inventors Different Than the Inventive Entity “他众”是指任何着作人或发明人之结合，和发明个体不同。 The term "others" in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be "by others." This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge and use. Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) "would negate the one year [grace] period afforded under § 102(b)." In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982). 在35 U.S.C. 102(a)中，“他众”一词代表任何个体，其系与发明个体相异者。其个体只 需要其中一人相异则可为"被他众"。这在任何种类的 可於35 U.S.C. 102(a)下之公开刊 物及公众所知悉及使用，及被列为引用资料之先前技艺及均适用。根据§ 102(b)，任何 其他35 U.S.C. 102(a)之阐明不能否定其给予的一年优 _ 期。" In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982). IV. "PATENTED IN THIS OR A FOREIGN COUNTRY" 在本国及异国之已取得之专利。 See MPEP § 2126 for information on the use of secret patents as prior art. 利用秘密专利作为先前技艺之资料，见MPEP § 2126 。 ====================================================== 2132.01 Publications as 35 U.S.C. 102(a) Prior Art ====================================================== 如 35 U.S.C. 102(a) 所述之先前技艺 35 U.S.C. 102(a) PRIMA FACIE CASE IS ESTABLISHED IF REFERENCE PUBLICATION IS "BY OTHERS" 35U.S.C 102(a) 若引证资料是”被他众” 所发布，则初步现证系被确立。 A prima facie case is made out under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) if, within 1 year of the filing date, the invention, or an obvious variant thereof, is described in a "printed publication" whose authorship differs in any way from the inventive entity unless it is stated within the publication itself that the publication is describing the applicant's work. In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982). See MPEP § 2128 for case law on what constitutes a "printed publication." Note that when the reference is a U.S. patent published within the year prior to the application filing date, a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection should be made. See MPEP § 2136 - § 2136.05 for case law dealing with 102(e). 如由申请日起一年内，在印刷刊物中敍有该发明或其显而易见之相异形态，而且文章之着 作者系与发明之个体相异者(无论其任何形态的相异)，除非其刊物中有注明其刊物是敍述 申请人之成果，否则根据35 U.S.C. 102(a)，初步现证成立，案例，In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).”印刷刊物组成之判例，见MPEP § 2128 。注意 ，当其引证资料是一已公开之美国专利，并其於申请日前一年内公开，基於35 U.S.C. 102(e)，其将被据以核驳。102(e)之判例，见MPEP § 2136 - § 2136.05。 APPLICANT CAN REBUT PRIMA FACIE CASE BY SHOWING REFERENCE'S DISCLOSURE WAS DERIVED FROM APPLICANT'S OWN WORK 当申请人表达对引证资料的揭露系由申请人之己方之作品而衍生的，申请人得据以对初步 现证提出反证。 Applicant's disclosure of his or her own work within the year before the application filing date cannot be used against him or her under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) (discussed below). Therefore, where the applicant is one of the co-authors of a publication cited against his or her application, the publication may be removed as a reference by the filing of affidavits made out by the other authors establishing that the relevant portions of the publication originated with, or were obtained from, applicant. Such affidavits are called disclaiming affidavits. Ex parte Hirschler, 110 USPQ 384 (Bd. App. 1952). The rejection can also be overcome by submission of a specific declaration by the applicant establishing that the article is describing applicant's own work. In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982). However, if there is evidence that the co-author has refused to disclaim inventorship and believes himself or herself to be an inventor, applicant's affidavit will not be enough to establish that applicant is the sole inventor and the rejection will stand. Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1982) (discussed below). It is also possible to overcome the rejection by adding the coauthors as inventors to the application if the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 116, third paragraph are met. In re Searles, 422 F.2d 431, 164 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1970). 申请人在申请日前一年内对他/她已方之作品之揭露不得引用35 U.S.C. 102(a)对抗之。 In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982) (在以下会作讨论。)因此，当申 请人为 被引作其申请案之对抗刊物 之共同创作人之一时，而当其他创作人以宣誓书确立 其刊物相对比例之部份系由申请人所原创者或从申请人所取得者，其刊物得从引证资料中 移除。而其宣誓书系名为”放弃权利誓约”。 Ex parte Hirschler, 110 USPQ 384 (Bd. App. 1952)。另外，申请人亦可递呈一明确的声明以确立其文章实为敍述己方之创 作，亦可据而克服其核驳。In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982)。然 而，若有证据显示其共同着作人已拒絶放弃其发明人之资格及相信其己方方为发明人，则 申请人之宣誓不足以确立其为独立发明人，故其核驳会维持原状。Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1982)（将於以下部份讨论）。若合乎35 U.S.C. 116, third paragraph之要求，透过加入其共同着作人为其申请案之发明人，其核驳亦可 能被克服。In re Searles, 422 F.2d 431, 164 USPQ 623 (CCPA 1970). In In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982), Katz stated in a declaration that the coauthors of the publication, Chiorazzi and Eshhar, "were students working under the direction and supervision of the inventor, Dr. David H. Katz." The court held that this declaration, in combination with the fact that the publication was a research paper, was enough to establish Katz as the sole inventor and that the work described in the publication was his own. In research papers, students involved only with assay and testing are normally listed as coauthors but are not considered co-inventors. 在Katz 案中( In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982),)，Katz 在一声 明中指出，该刊物的同共着作人，Chiorazzi 及 Eshhar为Dr. David H. Katz之学生，其 二人在Katz 手下工作并接受其指导及监管。法院认为此声明在加入考量了以下事实後， 系足以确认Katz为一独立发明人，以及刊物中之作品为出自其已方。在研究论文的状况中 ，学生系只涉及化验及测试，其通常会被名列为同共着作人，但不会将其考虑为一共同发 明人。 In Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1982), Kroger, Knaster and others were listed as authors on an article on photovoltaic power generation. The article was used to reject the claims of an application listing Kroger and Rod as inventors. Kroger and Rod submitted affidavits declaring themselves to be the inventors. The affidavits also stated that Knaster merely carried out assignments and worked under the supervision and direction of Kroger. The Board stated that if this were the only evidence in the case, it would be established, under In re Katz, that Kroger and Rod were the only inventors. However, in this case, there was evidence that Knaster had refused to sign an affidavit disclaiming inventorship and Knaster had introduced evidence into the case in the form of a letter to the PTO in which he alleged that he was a co-inventor. The Board held that the evidence had not been fully developed enough to overcome the rejection. Note that the rejection had been made under 35 U.S.C. 102(f) but the Board treated the issue the same as if it had arisen under 35 U.S.C. 102(a). See also case law dealing with overcoming 102(e) rejections as presented in MPEP § 2136.05. Many of the issues are the same. 在Kroger 案中，In Ex parte Kroger, 219 USPQ 370 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1982), Kroger, Knaster和其他人在一篇光电能产生之文章系名列着作人。其文章系被用 以核驳一以Kroger 和Rod为发明人之申请案之权利项。Kroger 和Rod提交一宣誓书以宣称 他们为发明人。其宣誓书中亦指出Knaster不过是被指示以执行而已，且其系於Kroger 下 工作并且受到其指导及监督。庭上指出，要是其为唯一的证据的话，在Katz案中， Kroger 和Rod为唯一发明人之事应已被确立。然而，於此案中，其有证据指出Knaster 曾 拒絶签处誓约以放弃其发明人之资格，及Knaster已利用书信的方式向PTO指出此案之证据 ，其信中主张其已为一共同发明人。庭上指出其证据(指Kroger 和Rod提交之宣誓书)系不 足 以克服其核驳。注意其核驳系基於35 U.S.C 102(f)所作，但庭上认为其状况应否同时 适用35 U.S.C 102(a)。观如MPEP § 2136.05.中出现，所克服102(e)核驳的判例，其中 数项内容为相同者。 A 37 CFR 1.131 AFFIDAVIT CAN BE USED TO OVERCOME A 35 U.S.C. 102(a) REJECTION 一据37 CFR 1.131提出的宣誓书可被利用以克服35 U.S.C. 102(a)之核驳。 When the reference is not a statutory bar under 35 U.S.C. 102(b), (c), or (d), applicant can overcome the rejection by swearing back of the reference through the submission of an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131. In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965). If the reference is disclosing applicant's own work as derived from him or her, applicant may submit either a 37 CFR 1.131 affidavit to antedate the reference or a 37 CFR 1.132 affidavit to show derivation of the reference subject matter from applicant and invention by applicant. In re Facius, 408 F.2d 1396, 161 USPQ 294 (CCPA 1969). See MPEP § 715 for more information on when an affidavit under 37 CFR 1.131 can be used to overcome a reference and what evidence is required. 当其引证资料非为35 U.S.C. 102(b), (c), or (d),之法规所禁止时，申请人能够基於 37 CFR 1.131提交一宣誓书并宣誓以溯往并克服对其刊物之核驳。In re Foster, 343 F.2d 980, 145 USPQ 166 (CCPA 1965).若其引证资料揭露了申请人之作品为源自他己， 则申请人得基於37 CFR 1.131或 37 CFR 1.132以提交宣誓书以让专利申请日往前移。 ===========================以上================================= 请各前辈给评指导　感谢 -- 聪明人不会因为没受教育而变笨， 笨人亦不会因受教育而变聪明。 豪语录 1:1 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 140.122.46.150 ※ 编辑: piglauhk 来自: 140.122.46.150 (09/03 19:39)