Sunday, 26 July 2015
Patentability in practice
The invention is that defined each claim in the specification document. Each claim is for a separate invention. But subsequent claim includes additional features to make their invention more specific.
Novelty/new is not the same as inventive/not obvious.
New or novelty question - is there any disclosure that describe or disclose the idea.
On question of inventive or not obvious - if there is some difference between the claim invention and the prior art, is this difference considered as inventive
Or not obvious to the skilled person
So if you conclude that the invention is not new, you don't have to go on to consider inventiveness.
But if you think that there is any difference at all , then the claim passes the novelty test for that publication, then the next question is whether the difference or new addition is inventive over the prior art.
When you consider novelty question, you usually cannot combine ideas from different publications. So you cannot take ideas a,b from document X , and ideas c,d from document Y, to say that they reveal features a,b,c,d when combined, and therefore the claim with features a,b,c,d is not new.
Each claim is for a separate invention. You will notice that they add more features with subsequent claims. So claim 2 will have one or two additional feature than claim 1 , this is what they do to improve the chances of making the invention new -as you add more features - it is harder to find a single document that discloses all the features in the claim.
On the second question of inventiveness, this is usually a question for the skilled person in the industry to answer - whether it is obvious to him to bridge the difference based on the disclosure in the prior art.
Thursday, 23 July 2015
Sunday, 19 July 2015
Saturday, 18 July 2015
印度尼西亚共和国商标法简评
知识产权包括著作权，专利权，商标和商业秘密
印度尼西亚共和国专利法2001年
印度尼西亚共和国商标法 2001年
从理论上讲，类似任何驰名商标， 不能注册在第三者的明下。
商标局不予登记的任何商标，如果它是类似于任何驰名商标。
但在实践上，被抢先注册的商标已经是算数不尽。
目前的现象情况状态， 部分的原因是法庭在推理论证过程缺乏透明度。法律书面说解極为简短。 一番不过两页稿纸。并且判决书一般没規侓化的公开， 法律界学者无法搜集案例以及研究或批评。因此印尼法庭的书面推理在观察家眼内还是毫无进步。
因为透明度欠佳， 所以引起一些人怀疑法官的公正能力。
这也对商标局捡查官的审查能力有一定的影响。
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)