相反教导对专利申请创造性判断的影响  

Influence of Opposite Teaching on the Judgment of the Inventive Step

作　　者：史立红 时彦卫[1] Shi Lihong;Shi Yanwei(Patent Examination Cooperation(Beijing)Center of the Patent Office,CNIPA,Beijing 100160,China)

机构地区：[1]国家知识产权局专利局专利审查协作北京中心,北京100160

出　　处：《广东化工》2022年第18期105-106,125,共3页Guangdong Chemical Industry

摘　　要：专利申请的创造性判断中,申请人常常以现有技术存在“相反教导”来作为争辩理由,专利审查指南及操作规程对于“相反教导”缺乏明确的定义,实践中,对“相反教导”的判断方法及原则,易于受到主观因素的影响,产生较多的争议。本文通过化工领域的实际案例,就如何站位本领域技术人员和基于现有技术整体考量“相反教导”进行了分析。In judging the inventive step of the patent application,the applicant often takes the existence of“opposite teaching”in the prior art as the argument.“Guidelines for Patent Examination”and“Patent Examination Operation Rules”lack a clear definition for“opposite teaching”.In practice,the judgment principle for“opposite teaching”is easy to be affected by subjective factors,resulting in more disputes.Through specific cases in the field of chemical industry,this paper analyzes how to stand in the person skilled in the art and judge“opposite teaching”based on the overall consideration of the prior art.

关 键 词：相反教导 创造性 技术启示 整体原则 判断标准 

分 类 号：G306[文化科学]