加载中…
个人资料
benz
benz
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:149,426
  • 关注人气:92
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
谁看过这篇博文
加载中…
正文 字体大小:

PCT标准语段中英文对照--创造性

(2009-10-09 16:30:24)
标签:

of

to

document

from

this

杂谈

分类: 资料库

有关创造性的评述

  本主题涉及创造性有关评述,其包括4种类型,分别以第一为阿拉伯数字进行区分,每种类型下面包括多种情况,以第二位阿拉伯数字区分。审查员可以根据情况选择不同的项目进行撰写。

 

因为权利要求..A..的主题不具备PCT条约第33条(3) 意义上的创造性,因此本申请不符合PCT条约第33条(1) 的标准。


The present application does not meet the criteria of Article 33(1) PCT, because the subject-matter of claim/s ..A.. does not involve an inventive step in the sense of Article 33(3) PCT.

 

此外,尽管上文提及存在不清楚的缺陷,但是权利要求..A..的主题仍然不具备PCT条约第33条(3) 意义上的创造性,因此不符合PCT条约第33条(1)的标准。


Furthermore, the above-mentioned lack of clarity notwithstanding, the subject-matter of claim/s ..A.. does not involve an inventive step in the sense of Article 33(3) PCT, and  therefore the criteria of Article 33(1) PCT are not met.

 

文献..A..被认为是与权利要求..B..的主题最接近的现有技术,其公开了(括号中是该文献的参考部分):


The document ..A.. is regarded as being the closest prior art to the subject-matter of claim ..B.., and discloses (the references in parentheses applying to this document):

 

文献..A..被认为是与权利要求..B..的主题最接近的现有技术,在该权利要求能够被理解的范围内,这个文献公开了以下的特征(括号中是该文献的参考部分):


The document ..A.. is regarded as being the closest prior art to the subject-matter of claim ..B.., and insofar as this claim can be understood, this document shows the following features thereof (the references in parentheses applying to this document):

 

因此权利要求..B..的主题与已知..D..的区别在于:


The subject-matter of claim ..B.. therefore differs from this known ..D.. in that:

 

文献..A..被认为代表了本领域最相关的技术现状,其公开了(参见..B..)..D..,其与权利要求..E..的主题的区别在于:


Document ..A.., which is considered to represent the most relevant state of the art, discloses (cf. ..B..) a ..D.. from which the subject-matter of claim ..E.. differs in that...

 

因此,本申请要解决的问题可以认为是..R..


The problem to be solved by the present invention may therefore be regarded as ..R..

 

本申请中权利要求..E..提出的技术方案不具备创造性(PCT条约第33条(3) ),原因如下:


The solution proposed in claim ..E.. of the present application cannot be considered as

involving an inventive step (Article 33(3) PCT) for the following reasons.

文献..H..中描述的特征..G..提供了与本申请相同的优点。本领域技术人员因此认为将这个特征包含在文献..A..所描述的..D..中以解决所提出的问题是一种常规的/设计/选择。


Feature ..G.. is described in document ..H.. as providing the same advantages as in thepresent application. The skilled person would therefore regard it as a normal /design/option to include this feature in the ..D.. described in document ..A.. in order to solve theproblem posed.

 

 

考虑以上的段落..I..,本领域技术人员认为将权利要求..E..中陈述的所有特征组合起来只是一种常规的设计过程。


In view of paragraph ..I.. above, the skilled person would regard it a normal design procedure to combine all the features set out in claim ..E.. .

 

特征..G..仅仅是本领域技术人员能够从中选择的几种直接可能情况的其中一种,根据这些事实,不需要创造性的技能便可以解决提出的问题。


The feature ..G.. is merely one of several straightforward possibilities from which the skilled person would select, in accordance with circumstances, without the exercise of inventive skill, in order to solve the problem posed.

 

然而对于本领域技术人员来说,特征..G..等效于文献..H..中的特征..J..是公知的,并且在需要的情况下可以与该特征互换。


It is however generally known to the person skilled in the art that the feature ..G.. is an equivalent to the feature ..J.. of document ..H.. and can be interchanged with that feature where circumstances make it desirable.

 

然而,在类似的..D..中出于相同目的已经使用了这些特征,参见文献..H..,第..L..页,第..M..行。对于本领域技术人员来说,如果实现了相同的结果,则在文献..A..的基础上将这些具有相应作用的特征应用到..D..中,由此实现符合权利要求..E..的..D.., 这是显而易见的。


However, these features have already been employed for the same purpose in a similar ..D.., see document ..H.., page ..L.., lines ..M.. It would be obvious to the person skilled in the art, namely when the same result is to be achieved, to apply these features with corresponding effect to a ..D.. according to document ..A.., thereby arriving at a/n ..D.. according to claim ..E..

 

所声称的商业优势不能支持权利要求具备创造性的事实,因为没有证实这种商业优势是直接来自于权利要求..E..中请求保护的的发明的技术特征。


The alleged commercial advantage cannot support the case for inventive step, since it has not been demonstrated that such commercial advantage is directly derivable from the technical features of the invention claimed in claim ..E..

 

申请人在引用的现有技术文献..A..的公开日与该申请之间的一段时间内,提出了一项技术方案,它解决了本发明所涉及的长期以来期望解决的技术问题,但是满足这个期望的必要手段仅仅在该申请的提交日之前才能得到。


The applicant has submitted that in the period between the publication of the cited prior art document ..A.. and the application a solution to the problem to which the present invention relates was continually being sought, and that this long felt want is satisfied by the invention. The requisite means for satisfying this want were, however, available only shortly before the date of filing of the application.

 

权利要求..E..的发明仅在于材料..X..的新用途,从文献..A..中得知该材料是已知的。然而,这种用途不超出从文献..A..,第..B..页,第..C..行中已知的对该材料特性的使用。因此,权利要求..E..的主题不具备创造性。


The invention of claim ..E.. consists merely in a new use of material ..X.., which material is known from document ..A.. . This use, however, does not involve more than employment of properties of the material which are also already known from document ..A.., page ..B.., lines ..C.. Hence, no inventive step is present in the subject-matter of claim ..E.. .

 

权利要求..E..的主题在于从文献..A..描述的..D..的范围内选择..D..。如果..D..表现出相对于该范围剩余部分有预料不到的效果或者特性,则认为这种选择具备创造性。但是,在本申请中没有指示这种效果和特性,因此,权利要求..E..的主题不具备创造性。

 


The subject-matter of claim ..E.. consists in the selection of a ..D.. from the range of ..D.. described in document ..A.. Such a selection can only be regarded as inventive, if the ..D.. presents unexpected effects or properties in relation to the rest of the range. However, no such effects or properties are indicated in the application. Hence, no inventive step is present in the subject-matter of claim ..E.. .

 

 

权利要求..E..中的..D..与文献..A..公开内容的区别仅在于省略了特征..G..。除了对..D..带来显而易见的和随之更简单的设计之外,省略特征..D..的结果只在于..G..的作用不再出现在权利要求..E..的..D..中。这种简化不具备创造性(PCT条约第33条(3) )。


The ..D.. according to claim ..E.. differs from that known from document ..A.. only in that the feature ..G.. has been omitted. Apart from the obviously and consequently simpler design of the ..D.., the only result of the omission of feature ..G.. is that the effect/s related to ..G.. is/are no longer present in the ..D.. according to claim ..E.. . Such a simplification does not involve an inventive step (Article 33(3) PCT).

 

 

从属权利要求..K..不包含任何符合PCT关于新颖性和/或创造性要求的特征,将该从属权利要求中涉及的特征与其引用的任何权利要求的特征结合也不符合PCT关于新颖性和/或创造性要求,理由如下:


Dependent claim/s ..K.. does/do not contain any features which, in combination with the features of any claim to which it/they refers/refer, meet the requirements of the PCT in respect of novelty and/or inventive step, the reasons being as follows:

 

 

在权利要求..K..中定义了关于权利要求..E..中..D..的细微结构改变,其属于本领域技术人员所进行的一般性实践的范畴,尤其可以容易地预见由此实现的优点。因此,权利要求..K..的主题同样缺乏创造性。


In claim ..K.. a slight constructional change in the ..D.. of claim ..E.. is defined which comes within the scope of the customary practice followed by persons skilled in the art, especially as the advantages thus achieved can readily be foreseen. Consequently, the subject-matter of claim ..K.. also lacks an inventive step.

 

 

在类似的..D..中出于相同目的使用了从属权利要求..K..的特征,参见文献..H..,第..L..页,第..M..行。因此,对本领域技术人员来说,在文献..A..的基础上将这些具有相应作用的特征应用到..D..中,由此实现符合权利要求..K..的..D..,这是显而易见的。


The features of dependent claim/s ..K.. have already been employed for the same purpose in a similar ..D.., see document ..H.., page ..L.. , lines ..M.. It would therefore be obvious to the person skilled in the art, to apply these features with corresponding effect to a ..D.. according to document ..A.., thereby arriving at a/n ..D.. according to claim/s ..K..

 

文献..A..被认为是代表本领域最相关的技术现状,其公开了(参见..B..)..D..,权利要求..E..的主题与其区别在于..F.. 因此,权利要求..E..的主题具备新颖性(PCT条约第33条(2) )。


Document ..A.., which is considered to represent the most relevant state of the art, discloses (cf. ..B..) a/n ..D.. from which the subject-matter of claim ..E.. differs in that ..F.. The subject-matter of claim ..E.. is therefore novel (Article 33(2) PCT).

 

文献..A..被认为是与权利要求..B..的主题最接近的现有技术,其公开了(括号中是该文献的参考部分):..R..

因此权利要求..B..的主题与已知..D..之间的区别在于:..E..

因此权利要求..B..的主题具备新颖性(PCT条约第33条(2))。


The document ..A.. is regarded as being the closest prior art to the subject-matter of claim ..B.., and shows (the references in parentheses applying to this document): ..R..

The subject-matter of claim ..B.. therefore differs from this known ..D.. in that ..E.. The subject-matter of claim ..B.. is therefore novel (Article 33(2) PCT).

 

因此本发明要解决的问题可以认为是..R..


The problem to be solved by the present invention may therefore be regarded as ..R..

 

针对本申请权利要求..E..中提出的问题的解决方案被认为具备创造性(PCT条约第33条(3) ),理由如下:


The solution to this problem proposed in claim ..E.. of the present application is considered as involving an inventive step (Article 33(3) PCT) for the following reasons:

 

权利要求..F..是权利要求..E..的从属权利要求,因此也符合PCT关于新颖性和创造性的要求。


Claims ..F.. are dependent on claim ..E.. and as such also meet the requirements of the PCT with respect to novelty and inventive step.

 

从属权利要求..K..中特征的组合既不能从已有的现有技术中获知,也不能从已有的现有技术中明显导出,理由如下:..R..


The combination of the features of dependent claim ..K.. is neither known from, nor rendered obvious by, the available prior art. The reasons are as follows: ..R..

0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有