English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 11 |  Items with full text/Total items : 88866/118573 (75%)
Visitors : 23554269      Online Users : 127
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: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/53995


    Title: 美國專利訴訟書面說明要件之研究---兼論對我國專利審查及訴訟之啟示
    Other Titles: Research of Written Description Requirement in U.S. Patent Litigation--- Suggestion to Patent Examination and Litigation in Taiwan
    Authors: 王偉霖
    Contributors: 國立政治大學智慧財產研究所
    行政院國家科學委員會
    Keywords: 書面說明要件;據以實施要件;揭露充分性;不可預測性技術;生物寄存
    Written Description Requirement; Enablement Requirement; Sufficiency of Disclosure; Unpredictable Arts; Biological Material Depositing
    Date: 2010
    Issue Date: 2012-10-24 15:21:55 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 專利申請書應有兩重要部分,為說明書與申請專利範圍。後者決定專利權範圍,前 者是為了確定發明人發明內容已充分揭露給公眾,以換取國家賦予專利權之對價。 惟說明書內容應揭露至何種程度才算充分揭露?美國聯邦專利法第112 條第1 項規 定了據以實施要件(Enablement)、書面說明要件(Written Description)及最佳實施例(Best Mode)等三要件。據以實施要件為,說明書應將使用及製造之方法或步驟,以完整、清 晰、精簡、明確之用語,使該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者亦能製造和使用。書 面說明要件乃由美國司法實務所創設,其適用在所有技術領域中,說明書與申請專利範 圍內之元件相比,申請專利範圍之元件在說明書漏未描述者,即可能違反該要件,而被 判決專利權無效。 今年8 月21 日,美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院接受申請人ARIAD公司的聯席審理(En Banc Rehearing)之要求,針對美國聯邦專利法有關於書面說明要件的法律問題,美國聯邦巡 迴上訴法院認為有兩點必須釐清:一、書面說明是否獨立於據以實施要件為獨立要件? 二、如果書面說明是獨立要件,那其適用範圍及目的為何1? 反觀我國專利法及司法實務,並未區分書面說明與據以實施要件,僅以第26 條第2 項統稱充分揭露要件,而實務運作亦偏向美國據以實施要件。因此本計劃擬研究是否國 內在說明書揭露義務增加「書面說明要件」,使說明書所達到之功能更為完善,以提昇 說明書之品質並利於我國專利制度運作更細膩完整。
    Patent application comprise with two important parts, the patent specification and claims. Claims determine the scope of the patent and specification is to ensure that the inventor has fully disclosed his/her invention, in the exchange of exclusivity granted by the country. The questions of specification requirement arise to what extent of the invention details must be disclosed in the patent specification, to satisfy the standard of fully disclosure? The answers lay in 35 U.S.C § 112, Paragraph 1: “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”, which established the elements requires in a patent specification Enablement, Written Description and Best Mode. In the En Banc decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 21 Aug 2009. The court admitted appellate ARIAD’s petition, in seeking the interpretation of the legal issues regarding with the requirements of patent specification. The court felt the necessity to clarify two aspects: a. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1, contain a written description requirement separate from an enablement requirement? b. If a separate written description requirement is set forth in the statute, what is the scope and purpose of the requirement? In turns of our own patent act and judicial practice, there are no distinction difference made between specification and enablement requirement, although according to article 26 section 2 of the patent act, it requires the patent applicant to fully disclose his/her invention, but the actual practice and interpretation of such requirement is leaned toward enablement requirement of the U.S. Therefore this research intends to discuss the possibility of perfecting of our patent system, by adding the “Written Description” requirement in patent specification rule.
    Relation: 基礎研究
    學術補助
    研究期間:9908~ 10007
    研究經費:453仟元
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[智慧財產研究所] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    99-2410-H-004-146.pdf705KbAdobe PDF1780View/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
    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。
    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。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback