论文部分内容阅读
在创造性判断中,如果要求保护的发明或者实用新型与最接近的现有技术某个技术特征,其中一个区别在于当前者是上位概念,后者是下位概念时,不能简单地将两种概念对应的技术特征视为等同。此种情形下,需要结合上位概念和下位概念在各自方案中对应的技术特征的作用来判断两个技术特征是否实质等同,然后再结合其他区别技术特征来综合判断现有技术是否在整体上存在启示。总的来说,在大多数案例中,对比文件公开的下位概念并不等同于申请方案中的上位概念,并且该上位概念对于申请方案的创造性还会产生意想不到的贡献。
In creative judgment, one of the differences between the claimed invention or utility model and the closest technical feature of the prior art is that when the current one is a superordinate concept and the latter is a subordinate concept, one can not simply associate the two concepts The technical characteristics of the equivalent. In this case, it is necessary to judge whether the two technical characteristics are substantially equivalent by combining the corresponding technical features of the upper concept and the lower concept in their respective solutions, and then to judge whether the existing technology exists overall according to the other distinctive technical features Inspiration. In general, in most cases, the subordinate notion disclosed in the comparative document is not equivalent to the superordinate concept in the application scenario, and the superordinate concept can have an unexpected contribution to the creativeness of the application.