在审查意见答复中是否有必要质疑最接近的现有技术  

Is It necessary to Question the Closest Prior Art in the Review?

作　　者：张立得 牛继梅 ZHANG Lide;NIU Jimei(SIMBA IP LAW FIRM,Tsingtao 266000,China)

机构地区：[1]山东三邦知识产权代理事务所,青岛266000

出　　处：《专利代理》2025年第1期50-56,共7页Patent Agency

摘　　要：确定最接近的现有技术,是运用“三步法”评价发明创造性的第一步。在审查意见答复中,为了使发明能够取得一个较好的授权前景,许多专利申请人会以选取不当为由,对审查员所选取的最接近的现有技术提出质疑。然而,一项发明的创造性取决于该发明相对于现有技术整体所作出的实质贡献,而与审查员选取的最接近的现有技术并无太大关系,包括确定最接近的现有技术在内的“三步法”只是行使了创造性的校验功能。此外,最接近的现有技术的选取不当,会致使发明更容易达到非显而易见的标准,因此,置身于审查员所构建的评价环境中,将分析重点放在“三步法”的后两步,才能够在创造性答复上取得突破,也更容易让审查员信服。Identifying the closest prior art is the first step in evaluating the inventiveness by the"three-step method".In the response to the examination opinions,many patent applicants question the closest prior art selected by the examiner on the grounds of improper selection to ensure a good licensing prospect for the invention.However,the inventiveness of an invention depends on its substantial contribution to the prior art as a whole,and has little to do with the closest prior art selected by the examiner.The"three-step method",including the identification of the closest prior art,only exercises a creative verification function.In addition,improper selection of the closest prior art can make it easier for the invention to meet standards of non-obviousness.Therefore,in the evaluation environment constructed by the examiner,focusing the analysis on the last two steps of the"three-step method"can achieve breakthroughs in the responses of inventiveness and make the examiner more convinced.

关 键 词：最接近的现有技术 专利法 选取不当 创造性评价环境 

分 类 号：D923.42[政治法律—民商法学]