本文關(guān)鍵詞： 專利 創(chuàng)造性 非顯而易見(jiàn)性 TSM　出處：《復(fù)旦大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文　論文類(lèi)型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：創(chuàng)造性是授予專利權(quán)的實(shí)質(zhì)性條件之一。一個(gè)國(guó)家對(duì)于發(fā)明專利創(chuàng)造性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的規(guī)定,既是該國(guó)專利政策的反映,也影響著該國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的發(fā)展。中美兩國(guó)在創(chuàng)造性的判斷基準(zhǔn)、判斷主體、判斷方法上也是各特點(diǎn)各有異同。本文試圖通過(guò)比較中美兩國(guó)在專利創(chuàng)造性定義、相關(guān)概念以及審查原則上異同,結(jié)合中國(guó)中國(guó)的現(xiàn)實(shí)問(wèn)題與司法實(shí)踐,對(duì)創(chuàng)造性問(wèn)題退出管窺之見(jiàn)。 本文第一章對(duì)創(chuàng)造性的概念以其在專利授權(quán)條件中所具有的意義有所論述,同時(shí),重點(diǎn)對(duì)幫助理解創(chuàng)造性概念的相關(guān)概念作了中美比較式的闡釋,明晰這些概念是理解發(fā)明專利創(chuàng)造性判斷方法的基礎(chǔ),其中包括了現(xiàn)有技術(shù),所屬領(lǐng)域的技術(shù)人員以及突出的實(shí)質(zhì)性特點(diǎn)以及顯著的進(jìn)步等概念。 第二章和第三章中分別對(duì)中國(guó)和美國(guó)發(fā)明創(chuàng)造性審查原則和審查基準(zhǔn)進(jìn)行了深入的理論論述。通過(guò)分析比較,中美在判斷基準(zhǔn)上,依據(jù)的是各國(guó)專利法中對(duì)創(chuàng)造性的規(guī)定。中國(guó)專利法中的突出的實(shí)質(zhì)性特點(diǎn)等同于美國(guó)專利法中的非顯而易見(jiàn)性,此外還增加了顯著的進(jìn)步的要求,創(chuàng)造性的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)似乎高于美國(guó)的創(chuàng)造性標(biāo)準(zhǔn),然而,由于顯著的進(jìn)步這一條件已經(jīng)解釋為有益的技術(shù)效果,其非常容易滿足,一般情況下不用考慮,因此中國(guó)的創(chuàng)造性判斷基準(zhǔn)實(shí)際上同美國(guó)的“非顯而易見(jiàn)性”基準(zhǔn)是一致的。其次,在判斷主體上,中美兩國(guó)都將其定義成一個(gè)假想的“人”,即,所屬領(lǐng)域技術(shù)人員,但是兩國(guó)對(duì)該“人”的能力的規(guī)定是不同的,中國(guó)規(guī)定該人具有所屬領(lǐng)域的普通知識(shí)和常規(guī)實(shí)驗(yàn)手段的能力,但他不具有創(chuàng)造能力。而美國(guó)規(guī)定,所屬領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員具有普通創(chuàng)造力。第三,在非顯而易見(jiàn)性的判斷方法上,中國(guó)采用“三步法”,美國(guó)采用“Graham事實(shí)調(diào)查,中國(guó)在采用“三步法”這一較客觀的創(chuàng)造性判斷方法后,強(qiáng)調(diào)了現(xiàn)有技術(shù)給出技術(shù)啟示的客觀證據(jù),因此創(chuàng)造性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)實(shí)質(zhì)上有降低的趨勢(shì)。美國(guó)在采用TSM準(zhǔn)則后,其創(chuàng)造性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)降低,但根據(jù)最高法院的最新判決和審查指南的規(guī)定,明顯的提高了其創(chuàng)造性標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 最后,在第四章中分析了我國(guó)專利目前所面對(duì)的狀況,基于前述中美之間的比對(duì)分析提出了相關(guān)完善我國(guó)專利創(chuàng)造性建議。
[Abstract]:Creativity is one of the essential conditions for the grant of patent rights. A country's regulation on the standard of invention patent creativity is a reflection of its patent policy. It also affects the economic development of China and the United States. China and the United States in the criteria of creative judgment, judgment of the main body, judgment methods are different and different. This paper attempts to compare the definition of patent creativity between China and the United States. Related concepts and principles of review, combined with China's practical problems and judicial practice, to the creative issues withdraw from the view. The first chapter of this paper discusses the concept of creativity with its significance in the patent licensing conditions, at the same time, focuses on the help to understand the concept of creativity related concepts made a Sino-American comparative interpretation. Clear understanding of these concepts is the basis for understanding creative judgment methods for invention patents, including the concepts of prior art, technical personnel in their field, outstanding substantive features and significant progress. The second chapter and the third chapter have carried on the thorough theory elaboration to the Chinese and the American invention creativity examination principle and the examination benchmark separately. Through the analysis and comparison, China and the United States are in the judgment standard. It is based on the creative provisions in the patent laws of various countries. The prominent substantive features of the Chinese patent law are equivalent to the non-obvious in the United States patent law, and the requirements for remarkable progress have been added. The criteria for creativity appear to be higher than those for creativity in the United States, however, since the condition of significant progress has been interpreted as beneficial technical effects, it is very easy to meet and generally not to be considered. Therefore, the Chinese creative judgment criterion is actually consistent with the US "non-obvious" benchmark. Secondly, in the judgment subject, both China and the United States define it as a hypothetical "person". Technical personnel in their field, but the two countries are different on the ability of the "person", China stipulates that the person has general knowledge of their field and the ability to conduct routine experiments. But he does not have the ability to create. The United States stipulates that ordinary technicians in their field have ordinary creativity. Third, in the non-obvious judgment method, China adopts a "three-step approach." The United States adopts "Graham fact investigation" and China uses "three-step method", which is a more objective and creative judgment method, and emphasizes the objective evidence of the technological enlightenment given by the existing technology. Therefore, the creative standards have a tendency to decrease substantially. After the adoption of the TSM guidelines in the United States, the creative standards are reduced, but in accordance with the provisions of the Supreme Court's latest judgment and review guidelines. The creativity standard is obviously improved. Finally, in Chapter 4th, the author analyzes the current situation of patent in China, and puts forward some suggestions on how to improve the patent creativity in China based on the comparative analysis between China and the United States.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：復(fù)旦大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D971.2;D923.42

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 王曉滸;試析發(fā)明創(chuàng)造性的判斷[J];電子知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2005年10期

2 李明;李卉;;1+1的創(chuàng)造性[J];中國(guó)發(fā)明與專利;2007年02期

3 于丹翎;美國(guó)專利申請(qǐng)中非顯著性要件簡(jiǎn)析[J];外交學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：1463351