中文/English

Just know today, why was it

2013-5-2 17:02| Announcer: admin

In the original patent application documents do not record the real closest to the existing technology easily lead to dangerous consequences, easy to be competitors to submit the closest to the existing technical evidence and a strong challenge; the claimant is not sure enough to persuade the examiner to accept the patent specification is not fully open , It is desirable to provide experimental evidence to prove that the claim is best defined at all levels to define the necessary technical characteristics, in particular to define the scope of the definition of the technical characteristics in order to determine the pyramid structure, to ensure that there is a compromise and support Patent protection. 

    In 2012, Beijing Boss & Young on behalf of a Japanese pharmaceutical company for the ZL99800775.7 Chinese patent (hereinafter referred to as "patent") filed a request for invalidation; based on the provision of more than 20 pieces of evidence, including a certificate used to prove the patent Part of the content (including text and graphic content) vague or data / conclusion wrong experimental report written testimony, we made the patent specification is not fully disclosed, claims 1-9 not support the instructions, claims 1-9 Do not have the reasons for the request to declare invalid. 
    The Patent Reexamination Board shall hear the expert witnesses sent by the Patent Reexamination Board and testify after the trial. The patent claims 1-9 shall not have the provisions of Article 22 of the Patent Law on the combination of the evidence provided by the claimant and the common knowledge 3 of the provisions of the creativity, and therefore decided to declare the patent involved all invalid. 

Commentary: 
The following share with you in the process of handling the case obtained a few inspiration: 
1.The closest existing technology should be recorded objectively 
  The claims relating to the patent are as follows: 
  A prostaglandin product, which contains: 
    a)、A prostaglandin aqueous solution composition comprising a therapeutic amount of at least one prostaglandin and a pharmaceutically acceptable surfactant, 
    b)、A polypropylene container in which the prostaglandin aqueous solution composition is packaged in the polypropylene container。 
    It can be seen that the distinguishing technical characteristics identified by the patentee are aqueous solutions containing prostaglandins and surfactants stored in polypropylene containers. However, the packaging container using the polypropylene material as the eye drops product is already in the prior art compared to the prior art document content provided by the prior art, and only the technical details are different from those of the technical solution of the present invention The prior patent document discloses a technical effect similar to that of its claimed technical effect, which is the main reason that the reappraisal committee has found that the patent claims 1-9 are not inventive. 
    Where the patentee does not truly reflect the closest state of the art in the application document at the time of writing the application document, the inventive scheme that caused the claim to be protected by the patentee is not of a peculiar substance with respect to the closest closest to the existing technology Sexual characteristics, did not show significant progress, and thus not creative. It is therefore advisable that some applicants have obtained a patent right by passing a substantive examination by notifying the real closest to the existing technology in the application document. However, in the event of a conflict of interest, it is difficult to avoid the closest The technical literature is not found by competitors and used as evidence to claim that the patent is invalid. According to the Chinese saying goes, "is a disaster to hide," there is a "is known today, why the original". 
2.The claims are written in a pyramid-like structure that protects at different levels, with at least one supported invention 
    The "pharmaceutically acceptable surfactants" in claim 1 claim a wide range of protection and there is no dependent claim to attach a specific species or amount of surfactant or a combination thereof, resulting in the requirement that the claim is neither supported by the instructions , It can not be proved that a similar product of a specific surfactant used in the prior art does not prove that the product of the present invention is inventive. Therefore, it is desirable to set one or more dependent claims to protect their preferred, supported invention scheme when the scope of any of the technical features defined by the claims is relatively large. 
3.The experimental method described should be clear and the experimental data provided should be consistent with the technical logic 
    The effect of the invention of the invention has to be confirmed by the experimental results, and the obvious experimental method is not clear. The experimental data do not conform to the technical logic and the untrustworthy defects. Such a patent does not satisfy the requirement of full disclosure, Can not be considered creative. Therefore, in the preparation of the application documents, should try to avoid the above shortcomings, so that the comparison of examples and comparative examples can show that the invention does solve the existing problems. 
From another point of view, when the experimental method of other people's patent records of the experimental method is not clear, the experimental data does not meet the technical logic, if only side by side to persuade the collegiate group to make judgments through free evidence, often not enough to ensure that our In order to avoid the uncertainty of this result, the claimant may consider commissioning an independent third party intermediary to provide an experimental report based on the correct experimental method and procedure, as evidence of written testimony. At this time, it is very difficult for the collegial panel to "fail to prove" that we advocate as an excuse and do not support our claim that the patentee is usually difficult to give evidence, so bear the adverse consequences.
Address: 5/F, Tower A, GT International Center, Jia 3 Yongandongli, Jianguomenwai Ave, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100022, China
Tel:+86-10-5879 3300Fax:+86-10-5879 3311Email: mail@boss-young.cn
返回顶部