Re: [問題] 優惠期 新法 VS 舊法

看板Patent作者 (about to be couple)時間9年前 (2014/08/06 18:04), 9年前編輯推噓2(207)
留言9則, 4人參與, 最新討論串25/27 (看更多)
你引用的話的原文,AIA立法過程中參議員Leahy的發言 112th Congress Record Leahy We intend that if an inventor's actions are such as to constitute prior art under subsection 102(a), then those actions necessarily trigger subsection 102(b)'s protections for the inventor and, what would otherwise have been section 102(a) prior art, would be excluded as prior art by the grace period provided by subsection 102(b). Indeed, as an example of this, subsection 102(b)(1)(A), as written, was deliberately couched in broader terms than subsection 102(a)(1). This means that any disclosure by the inventor whatsoever, whether or not in a form that resulted in the disclosure being available to the public, is wholly disregarded as prior art. A simple way of looking at new subsection 102(a) is that no aspect of the protections under current law for inventors who disclose their inventions before filing is in any way changed. 這整段話翻起來是說 我們希望"如果一個發明人的行為會構成102(a)的前案,則所述行為必然啟動102(b)對 此發明人的保護,另一方面,會成為102(a)的前案的,就會被102(b)所提供的優惠期 所排除。確實,依據一個實例來說,被寫下來的102(b)(1)(A)的用字是被刻意措詞的比 102(a)(1)(的範圍)更廣。這代表著任何由此發明人所作的揭露,不管是不是被做成公開 的形式,都會被排除做為前案(的適格性)。簡而言之,對於新的102(a)來說 現在的法律對在申請前揭露了其發明的發明人的保護沒有任何一個面向被以任何方式改變 所以Leahy的立法目的究竟是什麼不言而喻 ※ 引述《VanDeLord (HelloWorld)》之銘言: ※ 編輯: VanDeLord (60.251.209.130), 08/06/2014 17:29:03

08/06 16:59,
我沒有不認同這個定義啊......so what?
08/06 16:59

08/06 17:00,
明確來說,我文中並沒有認為揭露一定是紙本的揭露
08/06 17:00

08/06 17:01,
但這個並不影響我們討論的主體(A揭露可否作為A1的前案
08/06 17:01

08/06 17:24,
洗板?
08/06 17:24

08/06 17:37,
你不是堅持說A可以作為A1的前案打進步性?
08/06 17:37

08/06 17:37,
現在又說:優惠期間內所有專利權人的行為都不會成為先前技術
08/06 17:37

08/06 17:38,
這是在搞笑嗎?
08/06 17:38

08/06 17:39,
i大,知錯能改,善莫大焉,不要打臉了,要不然等等689
08/06 17:39

08/06 17:39,
變9.2對你我都不好啊@@
08/06 17:39
Disclosure包含document 和 actitivies all activites 不代表all documents 以下猜猜看誰說的: A simple way of looking at [the new grace period] is that no aspect of the protections under current law for inventors who disclose their inventions before filing is in any way changed. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Senator Leahy ※ 編輯: VanDeLord (60.251.209.130), 08/06/2014 17:44:58

08/06 17:44,
你翻給大家看 這段在說什麼 在證明一下你英文有沒有問題
08/06 17:44
-- ※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc), 來自: 210.59.205.20 ※ 文章網址: http://www.ptt.cc/bbs/Patent/M.1407319489.A.E7B.html

08/06 18:09, , 1F
申請前揭露了其發明的發明人.... 謝謝^^
08/06 18:09, 1F

08/06 18:10, , 2F
你一直想把其發明=請求項主體......
08/06 18:10, 2F

08/06 18:11, , 3F
Leahy已經說了,相較於現行法律(pre-AIA),AIA中的優
08/06 18:11, 3F

08/06 18:11, , 4F
惠期的保護沒有一絲絲的改變
08/06 18:11, 4F

08/06 18:12, , 5F
也就是preAIA的優惠期實質上保護到哪,AIA就到哪
08/06 18:12, 5F

08/06 18:12, , 6F
他們想立的法就是"不管申請前一年內發明人做了什麼"
08/06 18:12, 6F

08/06 18:13, , 7F
他作的事情都可被優惠期排除
08/06 18:13, 7F

08/06 18:30, , 8F
08/06 18:30, 8F

08/06 22:17, , 9F
辛苦d大了
08/06 22:17, 9F
文章代碼(AID): #1JuVt1vx (Patent)
討論串 (同標題文章)
文章代碼(AID): #1JuVt1vx (Patent)