Dear David, Thank you for your emai

Dear David,



Thank you for your email below.



When considering the question of whether a piece of prior art invalidates a particular claim of the subject patent, my understanding is that the starting point should be to take the features of the subject claim, and look into the prior art to see if anything in the prior art teaches the person skilled in the art these features. If the features are present in the prior art, then the subject claim is not novel. If the features are not present, but a person skilled in the art could still easily arrive at the subject invention (ie obvious), the subject claim is not inventive. This appears to be the reverse of the approach taken in your slides.



With respect to novelty, sometimes the Court also looks at the argument of “reverse infringement”, that is to say, one first construes the features of a particular claim of the subject patent and then having done that, considers whether the prior art infringes this claim. If it does, then the prior art anticipates the subject claim.



At the moment, the purpose and role played by sensors C8-C10 in the train patent is discussed in Q&A60 (ii), but instead of packaging them as a “third detecting unit” which is present in the train patent (and absent from the ‘862 Patent), we have said that C8-C10 cannot fulfil the purpose of the second detecting unit in the ‘862 Patent with respect to sensing the shape and size of the driver cab in order to determine which part of the truck to dodge. In order to change how C8-C10 operates (measuring wheelbase) to being able to detect shape and size of the driver cab, a lot of research and experimentation would need to be carried out.



Perhaps we could say clearly at the start of Q&A60 (ii) that the ‘862 Patent requires a set of sensors to detect shape and size of the driver cab, and this is clearly absent from the train patent. The inventor would have had to design a “third detecting unit” and incorporate that into the train patent. Then, we could go on to say, looking at the train patent, there is this other set of detecting units that the 3rd party’s expert has not dealt with – C8-C10. In the train patent, they serve the purpose of detecting which train cars to scan and which ones to dodge. Even if we treat C8-C10 as the “third detecting unit”, there is still a lot of work to be done to bring it from simple wheelbase measuring devices to sophisticated shape and size detecting units.



Would this work?



As for the “fourth detecting unit” comprising C1 and C11, could you please take me through your arguments? I am not quite sure I got them.



Best regards,

Pei Yee

結果 (中文) 1:

亲爱的大卫，



谢谢你的以下电子邮件.



时考虑的一件事先艺术品是否无效某一特定的主题专利索赔问题，我的理解是起始点应采取的主题的索赔，功能和入事先艺术以查看是否有任何事先的艺术的看看教熟练的艺术人这些功能。如果在事先的艺术特征，然后主题索赔不是新颖的。如果功能不存在，但熟练的艺术的人可能仍然很容易到达在主题发明 (ie 明显），主题索赔不是创造性的。这似乎是你的幻灯片中采取的办法反向



对新奇，有时，法院还看"反侵权"的论点，即是说，一个第一次认为，对于功能的主题专利，然后做完了，某一特定索赔，认为是否事先艺术侵犯了这种说法。如果是这样，那么预计将事先艺术主题索赔。



在这一刻，目的和作用发挥的传感器 C8 C10 火车专利中讨论了在 Q&A60 (ii)，但而不是加以包装，作为"第三次检测的单位"是目前在火车专利 (和缺席从 862 专利），我们已经说过 C8 C10 不能履行的目的在 862 第二个检测单位对遥感的形状和大小的驱动程序 cab，确定哪部分卡车要躲避的专利。为了改变 C8 C10 的运行方式 （测量轴距) 到能够检测到的驱动程序 cab，形状和大小大量的研究和实验需要进行。



也许我们可以在 Q&A60 开始时清楚地说 (ii) 862 专利需要一套传感器探测到的形状和大小的驱动程序 cab，和这是显然不存在从火车专利。发明者将不得不设计"第三次检测单位"和这一点的火车专利也纳入。然后，我们可以说，看着火车专利，检测单位，在第三方专家已未处理 — — C8 C10 这另一套。在火车专利、 他们服务要扫描哪些列车车厢和哪些要躲避检测的目的。即使我们对待 C8 C10 作为"第三次检测单位"，仍有很多工作要做，把它从简单的轴距测量设备到复杂的形状和尺寸的检测单位。



将这项工作吗?



"第四次检测单位"C1 和 C11 组成，至于能不能带我通过您的参数吗？我不很确定我拿到了.



最好的问候，

裴怡

結果 (中文) 3:

亲爱的戴维，



谢谢你的邮件。



在考虑是否一个现有的特定主题的无效请求专利，我的理解是，出发点应采取的主题诉求的特点，并展望现有艺术看如果在现有的任何教人在艺术的这些特点，熟练。如果功能在现有技术中存在的问题，然后要求不是小说。如果功能是不存在的，但一个技术熟练的人员仍然可以很容易地到达发明（IE明显），主体的主张不是发明的。这似乎是在你的幻灯片中所采取的方法相反。



相对于新颖，有时候，法院也看“反侵权”的说法，也就是说，一个对特定债权的主体专利的特征并将这样做的话，考虑是否现有技术侵犯索赔。如果是这样，那么现有预期的主题诉求。



此刻，目的和作用的传感器C8-C10在火车专利是问&A60讨论（Ⅱ），但不是包装为“第三检测单元”这是在列车的专利目前（和缺席的862项专利），我们已经说过，C8-C10不能满足第二检测单元中的‘862专利相对于感知形状和驾驶室为了确定部分道奇卡车大小的目的。为了改变C8-C10操作（测量轴距）能够检测形状和驾驶室尺寸，大量的研究和实验，还需要进行。



也许我们可以说清楚在开始问&A60（II），862个专利需要一套传感器检测的形状和驾驶室的大小，这显然没有从列车的专利。发明者将不得不设计一个“第三检测单元”纳入到火车的专利。然后，我们可以说，看着火车的专利，有另一套检测单位，第三方的专家没有处理–C8-C10。在列车的专利，他们为这辆探测扫描的目的和哪些道奇。即使我们把C8-C10为“第三检测单位”，仍然有很多工作要做，把它从简单的轴距测量设备到复杂的形状和尺寸的检测单元。



将这项工作？



作为“第四检测单位”包括C1和C11，请你带我到你的观点吗？我不是很确定我得到它们。



诚挚的问候，

佩怡