100¦~08¤ë¸¹ ¹D ªk ªk °T (232)

DEEP & FAR

 

 

¶i¨B©Ê¶·¨Ìªk»{©w(¤Q¥|)

(Federal Circuit 2008-1073)

 

³¯ºaºÖ ±M§Q¥N²z¤H

¡E¤¤°êÂåÃľǰ|ÃľǨt¾Ç¤h

¡E¤é¥»ºÖ©£¤j¾Ç¥ÍÃľǩҺӤh

¡E¶§©ú¤j¾ÇÂå¾ÇÃIJz©Ò³Õ¤h

 

 

¨Ò¦p¡AWolff¸ÑÄÀºÙ¡A¡u³Ì

ªì¤§ÃÒ¨¥¤¤¡A¦å¤pªO»PÀH«á¦å®ê¤§§Î¦¨38«YÂǥѤä¬[³]­p¡A¥H¤Î­­¨î¦­¥ý¤w´y­z¤§¦å¤pªO¾®»E»P¨ä¥L¥ß§Y­×¸É¤ÏÀ³¤§ÄÀ¥X¡A©Ò±±¨î¦Ó´î¦Ü³Ì¤p¡C§½³¡©Ê¤§¦å®ê§Î¦¨. . . . .¥ç¥i´î¤Ö¡v¡C[1]´«¥y¸Ü»¡¡AWolff¹w´Á¹B¥Î¤ä¬[¤§³]­p¡A°£¹B¥Î¤@¦å®ê·»¸ÑÃĪ«¤§ÄÀ¥X¥H´î¤Ö¦å®ê¥~¡A¨ä±o¥]§tª¿½¦©Î»EÓi°ò¥Ò»Äà­¤§³»¼h¥H´î¤Ö¦å®ê¡C¦]¦¹¡A¬ö¿ý¤º¨Ã¥¼¥]§t¥R¤À¤§ÃÒ¾ÚÅý³­¼f¹Î½×Â_¡AWolff¨Ã¥¼±Ð¥Ü¤@µL¦å¤pªOÂHªþ¤§³»¼h¡C

ªi¤h¹y¬ì§Þª§ÅGºÙ¡AWolff¨Ã¥¼»{ª¾¹ê½è¤WµLÃĪ«¤§³»¼h©Ò§e²{ÃB¥~¤§µL¦å¤pªOÂHªþ¡A«YÀu©ó§tÃĪ«¤§³»¼h¡A¦ýWolff¤£»Ý­n»{ª¾¤@¹ê¬I¨Ò¤§ÃB¥~ÀuÂI¦Ó°µ¦¨½Ð¨D¶µ¤§Åã¦Ó©ö¨£¡C[2]

¦p§Ú­Ì¤w¸ÑÄÀ¡AWolff±Ð¥Ü½Ð¨D¶µ²Ä8¶µ¤§©Ò¦³­­¨î¡A¥B¸Ó¬ö¿ý¨Ã¥¼¥]§t¥R¤À¤§ÃÒ¾ÚÅý³­¼f¹Î¥[¥H½×Â_¡CÃö©ó¦¹¨Æ¹êÁn©ú¤§°ß¤@¸ê®æ­n¥ó¡A¤D©Ò¦³­­¨î§¡¥iµo²{¡A«Y´y­z©ó¦P¤@±M§Q¤§¨â¤£¦P¹ê¬I¨Ò¡A¦Ó«D©ó¤@¹ê¬I¨Ò¡CµM¦Ó¡A¡u­Y¤@¯ë¼ô±x¸Ó¶µ§ÞÃÀ¤H¤h¥i¹ê¬I¤@¥i¹w´ú¤§Åܲ§¡A«h¡± 103¥i¯àªýê¨ä¥i±M§Q©Ê¡v¡C[3]

 

  



[1]. Id. at col.9 ll.46¡V52 (emphases added).

[2]. See, e.g., Merck & Co. v. Biocraft Labs., Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (¡§That the [prior art] patent discloses a multitude of effective combinations does not render any particular formulation less obvious. This is especially true because the claimed composition is used for the identical purpose taught by the prior art.¡¨); In re Corkill, 771 F.2d 1496, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (affirming obviousness rejection of claims in light of prior art teaching that ¡§hydrated zeolites will work¡¨ in detergent formulations, even though ¡§the inventors selected the zeolites of the claims from among ¡¥thousands¡¦ of compounds¡¨).

[3]. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740.