The Identification Of Technical Revelation In Patent Inventive Assessment On "Automatic Fire Extinguisher Case"

The Monopoly Law made in the United Kingdom in 1624 is the beginning of the modern patent law, and more than one hundred countries and regions have already established patent system all over the world up till mow. The United States as the representative of the western countries has established a rather comprehensive patent system through a long period of practice and exploration. Our country has established a relatively perfect patent system by drawing on its practice and the Occident theory and experience, while patent system has just been developed for more than 30 years in China. Among them, the patent censor system has made great strides.Starting with patent creative judgment, this paper focuses on the critical step of identifying technical revelation and its related problems. With the key point of a typical case, it summarizes several controversial issues on the basis of analyzing the arguments put forward by the parties involved in the case and the judgment. Then it analyzes the disputed points and gives some suggestions by combining foreign review experience with our country’s patent review practice and judicial practice.This thesis is divided into three parts.The first part is about the case brief and the summary of controversial issues. By a brief introduction to the controversy over invalid patent--automatic fire extinguisher case arraigned by the Supreme Court and being based on the analysis of the case, it concludes several issues about creativity, which offers the orientation of this paper.The second part is the main part. It analyzes the arguments of the two sides put forward in the first part and gives a detailed introduce to the concept and scope of existing technology, the features and classification of technology, distinguishing differentiating technical features from equivalent characteristics, the classification of technical revelation and under what circumstances existing and so on. Besides, it makes the detailed analysis to the related issues by drawing on foreign classic precedents and legislative provisions and combing with the practical examples.The third part is the purport of this paper. Based on the analysis of the second part and back to the case, it gives some suggestions about our country’s patent review practice and judicial practice aiming at judgment grounds and arguments put forward by the parties. During the period of patent creative judgment, firstly, it is necessary to accurately grasp the existing technology, clarify its scope, and incorporate the technology in the three levels of the existing technology into the patent review guide in order to make clear guidance for the review practice. Secondly, it is important to avoid judgment errors of technical revelation. Even though there is a description of the differentiating technical features in the existing technology, it is necessary to comprehensively analyze whether the technicians of this field have the desire of combination. Thirdly, is about auxiliary judgment factors, namely the co-factors can further determine the obviousness of invention. Fourthly, is to consider policy factors. According to the current development of all industries, patent review system must be applied flexibly. Fifthly, judgment grounds must be perfect in judicial decisions, and supervision by the masses can prompt judges to be serious about the judgments, so as to enhance the quality of trials.