h******o
发帖数: 10 | 1 本人新手，如果问题幼稚请多见谅。
examiner rejected all claims for obvious, 引用了A B C三个prior art说claimed
invention is simple combination of A B C. 我在写affidavit arguing for non-
obviousness
现在已经发现C中有missing element，并不适用在我们的invention中；
claimed invention中确实用了A B中的技术，可是那都是common method in the art
带我的attorney一直在强调虽然用了A B中的技术，但在claimed invention中吧A B中
的技术与其他element combine在一起就不obvious， attorney一直要我think of the
invention as a whole。
道理很简单，可是在这种情况下请问具体怎么操作。我在读prior art写这个affidavit
的时候具体应该从什么角度考虑这个问题呢。 请大家指教指教吧，多谢啦 | i*******p
发帖数: 297 | 2 by affidavit do you mean an office action response?
claimed
the
affidavit
【在 h******o 的大作中提到】
: 本人新手，如果问题幼稚请多见谅。
: examiner rejected all claims for obvious, 引用了A B C三个prior art说claimed
: invention is simple combination of A B C. 我在写affidavit arguing for non-
: obviousness
: 现在已经发现C中有missing element，并不适用在我们的invention中；
: claimed invention中确实用了A B中的技术，可是那都是common method in the art
: 带我的attorney一直在强调虽然用了A B中的技术，但在claimed invention中吧A B中
: 的技术与其他element combine在一起就不obvious， attorney一直要我think of the
: invention as a whole。
: 道理很简单，可是在这种情况下请问具体怎么操作。我在读prior art写这个affidavit
| h******o
发帖数: 10 | 3 yes, it is an office action response, a declaration under 37 C.F.R.§1.132 | i*******p
发帖数: 297 | 4 sounds like a KSR lack of "rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness" type of argument.
disclaimer: I am noobie too!
【在 h******o 的大作中提到】
: yes, it is an office action response, a declaration under 37 C.F.R.§1.132
| z******n
发帖数: 336 | 5 Response is not an affidavit. Usually the inventor or witness uses affidavit
to state a FACT but not the reasoning/conclusion of obviousness or not.
What do you mean C中有missing element?
If this is what you are talking about,
Your claim has elements 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
A has 1,2
B has 3,4
C has 5
Then the combination of ABC is still missing 6 in your claim
Then No prima facie case of obviousnes is established.
To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the Examiner needs to give
three things
1. Each and every element in your claim is taught by ABC
2. Motiviation to combine ABC
3. Reasonable expectative of success
claimed
the
affidavit
【在 h******o 的大作中提到】
: 本人新手，如果问题幼稚请多见谅。
: examiner rejected all claims for obvious, 引用了A B C三个prior art说claimed
: invention is simple combination of A B C. 我在写affidavit arguing for non-
: obviousness
: 现在已经发现C中有missing element，并不适用在我们的invention中；
: claimed invention中确实用了A B中的技术，可是那都是common method in the art
: 带我的attorney一直在强调虽然用了A B中的技术，但在claimed invention中吧A B中
: 的技术与其他element combine在一起就不obvious， attorney一直要我think of the
: invention as a whole。
: 道理很简单，可是在这种情况下请问具体怎么操作。我在读prior art写这个affidavit
|
|
