检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:陈健[1] CHEN Jian(Civil and Commercial Law School, CUPL, Beijing 100088, China)
机构地区:[1]中国政法大学民商经济法学院,北京100088
出 处:《科技与法律》2017年第6期23-31,共9页Science Technology and Law
摘 要:美国BILSKI一案建立了机器或转换测试方法,对于商业方法的可专利性进行判断。但这一测试方法,没有解决的问题是对于欠缺机器或转换要件的方法发明,如何判断其可专利性。为解决这一问题,美国法院和专利商标局进行了许多努力,制订了许多审查指南。本文通过对于美国法院判例和美国专利商标局审查指南的研究,归纳总结了美国对于欠缺机器或转换要件的商业方法专利的判断标准,对于我国商业方法专利的完善可以起到更好地促进作用。In the U.S. BILSKI case, a machine or transformation test method is established as a criterion for the patentability of business method. However, what this method does not solve is how to judge the patentability if the business method is short of machine or transformation element. To solve this problem, the United States courts and USPTO made many efforts and formulated many guidance. Through a review of the United States court cases and USPTO guidance, this paper summarized judgment standard for business method patent lacking of a machine or transformation elements. It is expected that the paper will provide reference for the improvement of the business method patent judgment standard in our country.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.63