专利对谁来说是显而易见的?]

M. Klee
{"title":"专利对谁来说是显而易见的?]","authors":"M. Klee","doi":"10.1109/EMB.2008.915493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the basic tenets of patent law is that an inventor is not entitled to a patent on an invention that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. But who is that person? That was the question before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in the recent case of Daiichi Pharmaceuticals. The case shows that the inquiry on who is the person of ordinary skill in the art does not necessarily stop with the claims of the patent in suit. Daiichi's claims were directed to first- line physicians, but in finding a way to help such physicians, it had relied on scientists with very different skills. Having named those scientists as its inventors, the CAFC had no trouble in deciding that they were the actual audience for Daiichi's patent and were the persons of ordinary skill in the art.","PeriodicalId":50391,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine","volume":"27 1","pages":"102-102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1109/EMB.2008.915493","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patents [obvious to whom?]\",\"authors\":\"M. Klee\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/EMB.2008.915493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"One of the basic tenets of patent law is that an inventor is not entitled to a patent on an invention that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. But who is that person? That was the question before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in the recent case of Daiichi Pharmaceuticals. The case shows that the inquiry on who is the person of ordinary skill in the art does not necessarily stop with the claims of the patent in suit. Daiichi's claims were directed to first- line physicians, but in finding a way to help such physicians, it had relied on scientists with very different skills. Having named those scientists as its inventors, the CAFC had no trouble in deciding that they were the actual audience for Daiichi's patent and were the persons of ordinary skill in the art.\",\"PeriodicalId\":50391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"102-102\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-03-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1109/EMB.2008.915493\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/EMB.2008.915493\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/EMB.2008.915493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

专利法的基本原则之一是,发明人无权就一项发明获得专利,而这项发明对于具有该领域普通技能的人来说是显而易见的。但这个人是谁呢?这是联邦巡回上诉法院(CAFC)在最近第一三制药(Daiichi Pharmaceuticals)一案中面临的问题。该案例表明,对于谁是该技术领域的普通技能人的探究并不一定随着诉讼中专利的权利要求而停止。第一三公司的声明是针对一线医生的,但在寻找帮助这些医生的方法时,它依靠的是拥有截然不同技能的科学家。在将这些科学家命名为其发明人之后,CAFC毫不费力地认定他们是Daiichi专利的实际受众,是该技术的普通技能人员。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patents [obvious to whom?]
One of the basic tenets of patent law is that an inventor is not entitled to a patent on an invention that would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. But who is that person? That was the question before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in the recent case of Daiichi Pharmaceuticals. The case shows that the inquiry on who is the person of ordinary skill in the art does not necessarily stop with the claims of the patent in suit. Daiichi's claims were directed to first- line physicians, but in finding a way to help such physicians, it had relied on scientists with very different skills. Having named those scientists as its inventors, the CAFC had no trouble in deciding that they were the actual audience for Daiichi's patent and were the persons of ordinary skill in the art.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine
IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Magazine 工程技术-工程:生物医学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信