특허성 관련 특허법 제29조 본문, 제1항 및 제2항 개정방안
Suggestions for the Modifications of Patentability-related Art. 29 of the Patent Act
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper suggests modifications on the Art. 29 of the Korean Patent Act, which prescribes major patentability requirements, such as inventiveness, novelty, prior art, inventive step, industrial applicability. Through the modifications, hopefully will be achieved are: ① harmonization of Korean patent jurisprudence with international treaties and those of other major countries, ② streamlining of Korean patent system for the benefit of users, and ③ elimination of some ambiguous aspects of the article. After comparatively studying corresponding provisions of the U.S.A., Japan, China, Europe, PCT and draft of SPLT, this paper suggests as follows:1. Prior art will be “any information in the world available to the public before the priority date”;2. Priority date will be “the actual filing date, or, if any effective priority claim, the earliest filing date of earlier applications”;3. PHOSITA will mean “a person having ordinary skill at the time of the priority date in the relevant technology field”;4. Art. 29 will be divided into four subprovisions, each of which will prescribes inventiveness, industrial applicability, novelty and inventive step, respectively;5. Inventive step (following the provision of draft SPLT) will be acknowledged if the invention cannot be easily substituted, combined or modified from the prior art; and 6. In accordance with above-mentioned suggestions, a few other provisions, such as Arts. 30 and 32, will be correspondingly amended. Art. 29 of the Korean Patent Act is the utmost important provision from the practical viewpoint. Notwithstanding, there has been need for substantive and procedural improvements. If the article is amended as suggested above, clarification, harmonization and streamlining will be the expected benefits.
Abstract
This paper suggests modifications on the Art. 29 of the Korean Patent Act, which prescribes major patentability requirements, such as inventiveness, novelty, prior art, inventive step, industrial applicability. Through the modifications, hopefully will be achieved are: ① harmonization of Korean patent jurisprudence with international treaties and those of other major countries, ② streamlining of Korean patent system for the benefit of users, and ③ elimination of some ambiguous aspects of the article. After comparatively studying corresponding provisions of the U.S.A., Japan, China, Europe, PCT and draft of SPLT, this paper suggests as follows:1. Prior art will be “any information in the world available to the public before the priority date”;2. Priority date will be “the actual filing date, or, if any effective priority claim, the earliest filing date of earlier applications”;3. PHOSITA will mean “a person having ordinary skill at the time of the priority date in the relevant technology field”;4. Art. 29 will be divided into four subprovisions, each of which will prescribes inventiveness, industrial applicability, novelty and inventive step, respectively;5. Inventive step (following the provision of draft SPLT) will be acknowledged if the invention cannot be easily substituted, combined or modified from the prior art; and 6. In accordance with above-mentioned suggestions, a few other provisions, such as Arts. 30 and 32, will be correspondingly amended. Art. 29 of the Korean Patent Act is the utmost important provision from the practical viewpoint. Notwithstanding, there has been need for substantive and procedural improvements. If the article is amended as suggested above, clarification, harmonization and streamlining will be the expected benefits.
참고문헌 (20)
- 吉藤行朔, "特許法 槪說", pp.98~
- 김원준, "특허요건 및 관련 법률의 개정방안", 지적재산권, pp.55~ (2004), 한국지적재산권법제연구원
- 김태수, "중국특허법", pp.316~ (2011), 한빛지적소유권센터
- 박성수, "특허요건, in 특허법주해 I" (2010), 박영사
- 심준보, "공지ㆍ공연실시ㆍ간행물공지의 의의", 특허법원 2006년도 제4차 지적재산소송실무연구회(2006. 7. 3.) 발표자료 (2006), 특허법원 연구회 자료실
- 윤선희, "『발명』에 관한 고찰", 산업재산권, (12), pp.1~26 (2002), 한국산업재산권법학회
- 발명의 정의규정의 개정 필요성 검토, "윤선희", 특허청, 73~ (2002)
- 이윤원, "특허법상 진보성판단에 관한 연구", 박사, pp.2006
- 이해영, "미국특허법", pp.301~302 (2010), 한빛지적소유권센터
- 전광출, "2010년 디자인보호법 개정안의 의미와 주요쟁점", 지식과 권리, (13) (2010), 대한변리사회
- 정차호, "의료 방법 발명의 특허보호 타당성 검토", 산업재산권, (19), pp.1~36 (2006), 한국산업재산권법학회
- 竹田和彦, "특허의 지식", pp.145~146 (2011), 에이제이디자인기획
- 中山信弘, "註解 特許法"
- 최승재, "생명공학 특허를 통하여 본 특허성(patentability)에 대한 소고", 법률신문, 2007. 01. 11, ~ (2007)
- 최승재, "특허법 제2조 제1호의 역할에 대한 소고", 법률신문, 2009. 06. 08, ~ (2009)
- 국무총리실 업무평가 보고자료, "특허청", ~ (2011)
- 특허청, "특허제도 선진화를 위한 특허법 개정안 공청회", pp.98~ (2011)
- 특허청, "심사지침서" (2002)
