나노기술특허보호의 진보성요건에 관한 연구
A Study on Nonobviousness requirement of Nanotechnology Patent
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The prosecution of nanotechnology-related patent claims is sure to raise unique problems. As technology continues to become increasingly more complex, we need to reexamine the rationale behind prior developed legal doctrine as applied to today's technology. One of most important problems is whether the miniaturization of known existing patented products to the nano-scale, standing alone, would satisfy the nonobvious patentability requirement. Substantial and fundamental differences exist between the world of nanotechnology and the traditional macro-technology world. Matter behaves uniquely when reduced to the nano-level. Furthermore, nano-scale interactions become dominated by quantum mechanical effects that are too weak to notice on the prior art at the macro-level. Based on the striking physical transformation that occurs when a prior art crosses from the macro-scale to the nano-scale, “the nano-scale is not just another step toward miniaturization, but a qualitatively new scale.” If the combined scope and content of all the available prior art does not enable a PHOSITA to produce the nano-scaled version of an existing device, it may not be legally concluded that the nano-scaled claimed invention is obvious, even if there is no difference other than size. Therefore, the miniaturization of existing, macro-scale, patented products to the nano-scale, standing alone, will satisfy the non- obviousness patentability requirement when the prior art references fail to provide an enabling method that puts the public in possession of the nano-scaled version.
Abstract
The prosecution of nanotechnology-related patent claims is sure to raise unique problems. As technology continues to become increasingly more complex, we need to reexamine the rationale behind prior developed legal doctrine as applied to today's technology. One of most important problems is whether the miniaturization of known existing patented products to the nano-scale, standing alone, would satisfy the nonobvious patentability requirement. Substantial and fundamental differences exist between the world of nanotechnology and the traditional macro-technology world. Matter behaves uniquely when reduced to the nano-level. Furthermore, nano-scale interactions become dominated by quantum mechanical effects that are too weak to notice on the prior art at the macro-level. Based on the striking physical transformation that occurs when a prior art crosses from the macro-scale to the nano-scale, “the nano-scale is not just another step toward miniaturization, but a qualitatively new scale.” If the combined scope and content of all the available prior art does not enable a PHOSITA to produce the nano-scaled version of an existing device, it may not be legally concluded that the nano-scaled claimed invention is obvious, even if there is no difference other than size. Therefore, the miniaturization of existing, macro-scale, patented products to the nano-scale, standing alone, will satisfy the non- obviousness patentability requirement when the prior art references fail to provide an enabling method that puts the public in possession of the nano-scaled version.
참고문헌 (18)
- 최성준, "특허청구범위의 해석에 있어서의 몇 가지 문제에 관하여", 특허청 개청 30주년 기념 논문집I
- 천효남, "특허법" (2007), 법경사
- "“한국 나노기술의 경쟁력, 세계적 수준으로 도약” 특허청 보도자료(2007. 8. 24 조간)", ~ (2007)
- Albert P. Halluin, "Nanotechnology: The Importance Of Intellectual Property Rights In An Emerging Technology", Journal Of The Patent And Trademark Office Society March (2004)
- Andrew Wasson, "Protecting The Next Small Thing: Nanotechnology And The Reverse Doctrine Of Equivalents", Duke L. & Tech. Rev, 10 (2004)
- Barry Newberger, "Intellectual Property and Nanotechnology,” 11 Tex. Intell. Prop. L.J. 649(2003)", ~ (2003)
- Charles P. Poole, "Introduction to Nanotech- nology 1" (2003), John Wiley &Sons, Inc.
- Dan L. Burk, "“Policy Levers in Patent Law,” 89 Va. L. Rev. 1575(2003)", ~ (2003)
- Glenn Harlan Reynolds, "“Nanotechnology And Regulatory Policy: Three Futures,” 17 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 179(2003)", ~ (2003)
- Joel Rothstein Wolfson, "“Social And Ethical Issues In Nanotechnology: Lessons From Biotechnologyand Other High Technologies,” 22 Biotechnology L. Rep. 376(2003)", ~ (2003)
- Janice M. Mueller, "「An Introduction to Patent Law」 15-16 (Erwin Chemerinsky et al. eds., Aspen Publishers 2003)", ~ (2003)
- Michael P. Williams, "Questions Abound About Patents and Nanotech- nology" (2003), N.Y. L.J
- Mark S. Kende, "“Technology'S Future Impact On State Constitutional Law: The Montanaexample,” 64 Mont. L. Rev. 273(2003)", ~ (2003)
- M. C. Roco, "“International Strategy for Nanotechnology Research and Development,” Nati'l Sci. Found., Aug. 28, 2001", ~ (2001)
- Nicholas M. Zovko, "“Nanotechnology and The Experimental Use Defense To Patent Infringement,” 37Mc George L. Rev.129(2006)", ~ (2006)
- Paul C. Lin-Easton, "“It's Time For Environmentalists To Think Small- Real Small: A Call For The Involvement Of Environmental Lawyers In Developing Precautionary Policies For Molecular Nanotechnology,” 14 Ga. J. Int'L & Comp. L. 107(2001)", ~ (2001)
- R. Scott Roe, "“Nanotechnology: When Making Something Smaller Is Nonobvious,” 12 B.U. J. Sci. &Tech. L. 127(Winter 2006)", ~ (2006)
- Robert P. Merges, "On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope,” 90 Colum. L. Rev. 839", ~