中美专利法创造性标准研究

发布时间：2018-01-25 17:53

本文关键词： 专利创造性非显而易见性 TSM　出处：《复旦大学》2012年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：创造性是授予专利权的实质性条件之一。一个国家对于发明专利创造性标准的规定,既是该国专利政策的反映,也影响着该国经济的发展。中美两国在创造性的判断基准、判断主体、判断方法上也是各特点各有异同。本文试图通过比较中美两国在专利创造性定义、相关概念以及审查原则上异同,结合中国中国的现实问题与司法实践,对创造性问题退出管窥之见。本文第一章对创造性的概念以其在专利授权条件中所具有的意义有所论述,同时,重点对帮助理解创造性概念的相关概念作了中美比较式的阐释,明晰这些概念是理解发明专利创造性判断方法的基础,其中包括了现有技术,所属领域的技术人员以及突出的实质性特点以及显著的进步等概念。第二章和第三章中分别对中国和美国发明创造性审查原则和审查基准进行了深入的理论论述。通过分析比较,中美在判断基准上,依据的是各国专利法中对创造性的规定。中国专利法中的突出的实质性特点等同于美国专利法中的非显而易见性,此外还增加了显著的进步的要求,创造性的标准似乎高于美国的创造性标准,然而,由于显著的进步这一条件已经解释为有益的技术效果,其非常容易满足,一般情况下不用考虑,因此中国的创造性判断基准实际上同美国的“非显而易见性”基准是一致的。其次,在判断主体上,中美两国都将其定义成一个假想的“人”,即,所属领域技术人员,但是两国对该“人”的能力的规定是不同的,中国规定该人具有所属领域的普通知识和常规实验手段的能力,但他不具有创造能力。而美国规定,所属领域普通技术人员具有普通创造力。第三,在非显而易见性的判断方法上,中国采用“三步法”,美国采用“Graham事实调查,中国在采用“三步法”这一较客观的创造性判断方法后,强调了现有技术给出技术启示的客观证据,因此创造性标准实质上有降低的趋势。美国在采用TSM准则后,其创造性标准降低,但根据最高法院的最新判决和审查指南的规定,明显的提高了其创造性标准。最后,在第四章中分析了我国专利目前所面对的状况,基于前述中美之间的比对分析提出了相关完善我国专利创造性建议。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：复旦大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D971.2;D923.42

【参考文献】