反向教导对创造性判断的影响  

The Influence of Reverse Teaching on Inventiveness Judgment

作　　者：郭静[1] GUO Jing(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：《专利代理》2025年第1期57-62,共6页Patent Agency

摘　　要：反向教导在审查实践、司法实践中经常被申请人、请求人、上诉人或者第三方等用来否定改进动机,从而反驳显而易见性,进而确认专利申请具有创造性,但是又经常会遭遇反向教导认定标准不一致导致案件结论反复被更改的尴尬。文章通过分析一个二审案例,得出创造性改进动机实践中存在反向教导判断标准不一的问题,通过进一步对该问题的原因进行剖析,并横向借鉴比较美国、欧洲、日本关于反向教导的法律规定和实践,最后提出客观判断反向教导的方法,并尝试对专利申请的创新主体提出建议。Reverse teaching is often used by applicants,petitioners,appellants,or the third parties in examination and judicial practice to deny the motivation for improvement,thereby refuting obviousness and confirming the inventiveness of patent applications.However,it often encounters the embarrassment of inconsistent recognition standards for reverse teaching,leading to repeated changes in case conclusions.This article analyzes a second-instance case to reveal the issue of inconsistent judgment standards for reverse teaching in creative improvement motivation practice,and further analyzes the reasons for this inconsistence.By comparing the legal provisions and practices related to reverse teaching in the United States,Europe,and Japan,the article proposes methods for objectively judging reverse teaching and attempts to provide suggestions for patent application innovation subjects.

关 键 词：反向教导 显而易见 改进动机 技术贡献 

分 类 号：D923.42[政治法律—民商法学]