주지관용기술을 적용한 발명의 진보성 판단
Determination of Inventive Step of an Invention Applying Common General Knowledge
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper, after analyzing theories of the U.S.A., Europe and the Republic of Korea, defines well-known knowledge or common general knowledge as a technology generally known and accepted without question to the skilled person in the relevant art. Generally, a knowledge described in several textbooks could be accepted as a common general knowledge. However, a knowledge described in one or a few patent specifications hardly be accepted as common general knowledge. A knowledge which was generally known and accepted without question even to laypersons can be introduced without a proving evidence. Even over contrary contentions, the Examiner can decide based on the common general knowledge. Furthermore, a knowledge which was generally known and accepted without question to the skilled person in the art can be introduced without a proving evidence. However, in this instance, if there is a contrary contention, the person who rely on the common general knowledge shall introduce a supporting evidence, regardless whether the procedure is before the Patent Office, the Board or the Court.
Abstract
This paper, after analyzing theories of the U.S.A., Europe and the Republic of Korea, defines well-known knowledge or common general knowledge as a technology generally known and accepted without question to the skilled person in the relevant art. Generally, a knowledge described in several textbooks could be accepted as a common general knowledge. However, a knowledge described in one or a few patent specifications hardly be accepted as common general knowledge. A knowledge which was generally known and accepted without question even to laypersons can be introduced without a proving evidence. Even over contrary contentions, the Examiner can decide based on the common general knowledge. Furthermore, a knowledge which was generally known and accepted without question to the skilled person in the art can be introduced without a proving evidence. However, in this instance, if there is a contrary contention, the person who rely on the common general knowledge shall introduce a supporting evidence, regardless whether the procedure is before the Patent Office, the Board or the Court.
참고문헌 (27)
- 한동수, "심결취소소송에서 주지관용기술의 증명방법 및 발명의 진보성 판단시 2차적 고려사항", 대법원판례해설, (76) (2008), 법원도서관
- 박태일, "최근 특허법원 주지관용기술 판단 사례에 관한 검토", 특허소송연구, 5 (2010), 특허법원
- EWHC 1487 (Pat), at 105, , 2010
- "It has never been easy to differentiate between common general knowledge and that which is known by some. It has become particularly difficult with the modern ability to circulate and retrieve information"[URL]
- 특허청, "특허･실용신안 심사지침서", 2011년도 추록, 3204~ (2011)
- "Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office (April 2009), part C, Chapter IV-22, 11.3", ~ (2009)
- R.P.C. 457, at page 482, , 1972
- "Al-Site Corp. v. VSI Int'l, Inc., 174 F.3d 1308, 1323-24 (Fed. Cir. 1999)", ~ (1999)
- Matthew J. Spark, "Determination of Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art: A Post-KSR Prosecution Tool", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 92, pp.315~315 (2010)
- "ACS Hospital Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 732 F.2d 1572, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1984)", ~ (1984)
- Eli M. Sheets, "A Little Common Sense is a Dangerous Thing: The Inherent Inconsistency Between KSR and Current Official Notice Policy", U. N.H. L. Rev, 10, pp.163~167 (2012)
- "In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992)", ~ (1992)
- "KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. et al., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)", ~ (2007)
- 竹田和彦, "특허의 지식", pp.185~ (2011), 도서출판 에이제이디자인기획
- 호문혁, "민사소송법", pp.453~454 (2008)
- 西田美昭, "심판서에 있어서 이유기재의 정도, In 특허판례백선", pp.304~305 (2005), 박영사
- Dan L. Burk, "Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?", Berkeley Tech. L.J, 17, pp.1155~1188 (2002)
- Dan L. Burk, "Biotechnology's Uncertainty Principle", Case W. Res. L. Rev, 54, pp.691~710 (2004)
- "Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1568-69 (Fed. Cir. 1988)", ~ (1988)
- "In re Zurko, 258 F.3d 1379, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 2001)", ~ (2001)
- "Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150", ~ (1999)
- "DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2006)", ~ (2006)
- "KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421", ~ (2007)
- "In re Fox, 471 F.2d 1405, 1407 (CCPA 1973)", ~ (1973)
- Lance Leonard Barry, "Did You Ever Notice? Official Notice in Rejections", J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y, 81, pp.129~138 (1999)
- "Perfect Web Technologies, Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2009)", ~ (2009)