对《专利文献的英汉翻译》一书中一些例句的商榷

nigerose wrote:

"作为本发明的一部分"

应该是这里所说的意思：
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/2100_2163_07_b.htm

Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 是美国的专利审查指南。

ysun wrote:

这一段说的 "Incorporation by reference" 并非是指引用别人的专利，而是指引用发明人或其法定代表或代理人先前申请的专利。 毫无疑问，自己先前的发明当然可以“作为本发明的一部分”。但若声称把别人的专利“作为本发明的一部分”，恐怕就会被人指控侵权。

ysun wrote:

这一段说的 "Incorporation by reference" 并非是指引用别人的专利，而是指引用发明人或其法定代表或代理人先前申请的专利。 毫无疑问，自己先前的发明当然可以“作为本发明的一部分”。但若声称把别人的专利“作为本发明的一部分”，恐怕就会被人指控侵权。

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claim_(patent)

Jepson claim
In United States patent law, a Jepson claim is a method or product claim where one or more limitations are specifically identified as a point of novelty, distinguishable over at least the contents of the preamble. They may read for instance "A system for storing information having (...) wherein the improvement comprises:". This claim’s name is based on a case, Ex parte Jepson, decided in 1917.

In a crowded art, a Jepson claim can be useful in calling the Examiner's attention to a point of novelty of an invention without requiring the Applicant to present arguments and possibly amendments to communicate the point of novelty to the Examiner. Such arguments and amendments can be damaging in future litigation, for example as in Festo.

On the other hand, the claim style plainly and broadly admits that that subject matter described in the preamble is prior art, thereby facilitating the examiner's (or an accused infringer's) arguments that the improvement is obvious in light of the admitted prior art, as per 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Prosecutors and applicants are hesitant to admit anything as prior art for this reason, and so this claim style is seldom used in modern practice.

This entry contains information applicable to United States law only.


The method of making one document of any kind become a part of another separate document by alluding to the former in the latter and declaring that the former shall be taken and considered as a part of the latter the same as if it were completely set out therein.

It is common drafting practice to incorporate by reference an existing writing into a pleading, contract, or other legal document in order to save space. The incorporating document, rather than copying the exact words of the existing document, describes it, and a photocopy is often attached to the incorporating document. This standard practice, however, encounters difficulty with the requirements prescribed by law for a will. If the will is a holograph — a document disposing of property that is written with one's own hand and not witnessed — the attachment might not be in the handwriting of the deceased and, therefore, invalid. If the will is formal, an attachment might violate the requirement that the testator (one who makes a will) or the witnesses subscribe (sign at the end of the will) the attachment. If subscription is not required, the incorporated document raises the question whether the testator has declared it to be a part of the will if it was not present at the time the will was signed.

nigerose wrote:

原文的意思，应该是“把别人的专利说明书内容纳入本发明说明书，作为本发明说明书内容的一部分”。

wherestip wrote:

http://www.sutherland.com/files/Publication/b26e3adf-f0d2-4662-9502-c746b5292ec2/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/109dc11a-9423-4650-a53d-b62e26414206/PatentStrategy&Management.pdf (same article in pdf file format)

看看这篇文章概念就更清楚了.

rhz820319 wrote:

根据中国法律的规定


第五十条 一项取得专利权的发明或者实用新型比前已经取得专利权的发明或者实用新型具有显著经济意义的重大技术进步，其实施又有赖于前一发明或者实用新型的实施的，国务院专利行政部门根据后一专利权人的申请，可以给予实施前一发明或者实用新型的强制许可。

没有取得前一发明专利权人许可，擅自实施的，应该属于侵权；但仅在本专利中引用，而不实施的话，似乎不构成侵权：该法规定，实施是依赖于前一发明的，但后一发明已属于“一项取得专利权的发明”。

[修改时间: 2009-05-31 09:58 GMT]

nigerose wrote:



不是一回事。

rhz820319 wrote:


引用但不作为权利请求项吧；我认为，不作为权项内容，应该就不侵权。prior art, background art 说明是本发明专利书的一部分，但并不可能说是权项的一部分，没哪位敢那么明目张胆的。