English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 109927/140876 (78%)
Visitors : 45969814      Online Users : 1181
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/109715


    Title: 專利法中「所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者」標準之法學實證研究
    Authors: 宋皇志
    Contributors: 科技管理與智慧財產研究所
    Keywords: 專利;通常知識者;客觀標準;虛擬的人;質性研究
    patent;PHOSITA;objective standard;hypothetical person;qualitative study
    Date: 2014
    Issue Date: 2017-05-17 16:08:20 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在現代專利法制中,「發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者」(下稱「通常知識者」)是一個相當重要之概念,例如專利進步性之審查,即係以「通常知識者」作為客觀之判斷標準。既為客觀標準,專利專責機關或法院在審酌發明是否具有進步性時,應先確定此客觀標準以作為審酌之依據。然我國法院判決中從未具體認定「通常知識者」之能力或學經歷標準究竟如何,亦未曾說明法院於審判中係如何「虛擬」成「通常知識者」以進行進步性與否之判斷。此重要之法律議題在國內外之學術研究中皆未詳細論述。本研究計畫目的之一在於研究專利審查官、法官與技審官係如何決定「通常知識者」之技術水準?目的之二在於研究審查官、法官與技審官係如何將自己「虛擬成」通常知識者,其中大多數法官必須「向上虛擬」,而大多數專利審查官與技術審查官必須「向下虛擬」。目的之三及在於從專利法之學理出發,為我國專利實務界研究出一套判斷基準:(一)如何決定通常知識者之技術水準;(二)審查官、法官與技審官如何將自己虛擬成該通常知識者之技術水準。唯有此判斷標準能夠確立,才能確保我國專利進步性之審查有一客觀且齊一之判斷標準。本研究之研究方法擬採社會科學中之質性研究,對二十位受訪者進行深度訪談,以瞭解法官、專利審查官與技術審查官於審判或審查實務中是否具體確定「通常知識者」之技術水準,以及如何於審判或審查實務中「向上虛擬」或「向下虛擬」;接下來依據紮根理論(grounded theory),對訪談資料進行開放性編碼(coding)、歸類並進行深入分析,期待
    在專利法學理上有所突破,並作為實務工作者審判時之參考。本研究之結論包含:(1)進行專利進步性審查前,應先界定「發明所屬技術領域」以及「通常知識者」之技術水準;(2)
    大部分法官、技術審查官與專利審查官於進行進步性之判斷時,並未明確界定與虛擬「通常知識者」之技術水準;(3)進步性之審查必須將基準時點回到專利申請日或優先權日,但
    實務上近乎不可能;(4)進行先前技術檢索時,不需考量「通常知識者」;以及(5)智慧財產局與智慧財產法院應建立公平之專利審查機制。本研究之建議包含:(1)「發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者」法律要件之釐清與修法;(2)通常知識者技術水準之判斷、體現與虛擬;(3)用其他專利文獻做為虛擬通常知識者之輔助工具;(4)專利審查官之選任與資深審查官之重用;(5)智慧財產法院技術審查官之數量必須再大幅增加,且必須要有產業經驗。
    The conclusions of this research include that: (1) the scope of the art and level of PHOSITA should be
    determined before the determination of patent nonobviousness;(2) most Decision Makers don't
    determine the level of PHOSITA; (3) the determination of non-obviousness should base on the
    filing day or priority day, but it's really impossible in practice; (4) the level of PHOSITA
    doesn't need to be considered while doing prior art search; and (5) the TIPO and the IP Court should build up a fair mechanism for patent examinations. The suggestions of this research include that: (1) the law regarding PHOSITA in Taiwan should be amended; (2) the way to determine the level of PHOSITA is raised; (3) the other patents may be applied as a supplementary tool to hypothesize the PHOSITA; (4) senior patent examiners should be valued; and (5); the numbers of technical officers in the IP Court should be expanded.
    Relation: MOST 103-2410-H-004-008
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    103-2410-H-004-008.pdf883KbAdobe PDF2219View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback