Cases Viagra instructions from the public fully understood

 See someone say instructions relating to inadequate disclosure provisions of the Patent Law Implementing Rules in Patent under one of the reasons, but in actuality, it does not necessarily able to get the desired results. One important reason is that in the specific case proceedings , because the patent specification and claims are generally part of patent documents as submitted to the examiner or the judge at the same time, and the contents recorded in the two are interrelated, in the habit of thinking under the influence, the inspector or judge In determining whether to release the full specification often consciously or unconsciously, when claims will be recorded in the content into account. Twenty-six third paragraph of the Patent Law does not fully open about the specific terms of the instructions for model in a manner sufficiently clear and complete description of the technical field technicians to carry it out; when necessary, drawings. independent existence of the subject should be recorded in the patent specification content, rather than a patent specification and claims are recorded in the content, but not all of the patent application documents should be recorded in the content. Because the specific course of legal proceedings, the patent Invalid requesting party and its agents are not often good reasons for public debate focused on the adequacy of the public, but ignored the patent law requirement of lead to litigation ended in failure. So, how to determine whether the disclosure statement in determining when there is not sufficient to introduce the claims of the content? I believe that the relatively simple approach is to determine the conclusions of the records used in the claims The manual is not recorded in the content removed, and then look at this to determine whether the station the right conclusion, If you still are correct, then it should be said that in considering whether to release the full specification into the claims when there is no written record of the contents of the manual is not, and vice versa versa. Patent Number below to 94192386.X (Viagra patent) is invalid Case specific. Beijing First Intermediate People's Court No. patent is invalid for 94192386.X case, in June 2, 2006 issued a (2004 ) on the beginning of the word No. 884, Bank of China executive verdict, the verdict main reasons are as follows: determine the optimal level of understanding of the so-called invention should be closely related to the realization of the purpose, the standard should be the same, that is particularly preferred individual compounds of the invention which is the fifth class of compounds is the best treatment. The patent recorded a particularly preferred compounds in vitro and found that they have specific cGMP is a highly selective inhibitor of PDEv the same time, the manual also documents the results of clinical trials in vivo, that is, a particularly preferred compounds induce male erectile impotence. Although this class has 100 kinds of compounds, but the instructions are not clear in this specific compounds which obtained the above results, but it should be noted that, under normal circumstances, compounds given in the description of specific data or test results is better derived compounds. It can be seen, more preferred compounds have the fourth-level activity in vitro and in vivo. fifth grade compounds as given in the manual optimal level, which compounds structurally similar to 9, and its pharmacological activity should be similar and, therefore, the person skilled in the 9 compounds recognized as one of the claims of the patent specifications mentioned compounds have therapeutic effects it is reasonable to , and creative work without further cost. Patent Reexamination Board decision in 6228 that the treatment effect and the fifth class compounds and compounds the lack of claims associated with compounds selected from the fourth grade and confirmation of compounds have the therapeutic effect of claims to pay ignore the creative work of the above, not justified, the Court not support their judgments on the basis of the opinion that the patent does not comply with the patent provisions of third paragraph of Article Six is wrong, so the decision should be revoked . The treatment effect is reasonable, and creative work without further costs, introduced in the claims recorded in the contents of the above judges to arrive at the requesting party is not conducive to the conclusions invalid. Because of patent law relating to the disclosure statement corresponding to the full terms of the expansion of the main range can be used to make up for 94,192,386 happen . X specification themselves Patent No. defects. If the judge in the judge adopted the conclusions of the claims recorded in the instructions to remove the contents were not recorded, that has become a compounds, one of the compounds have brochures described the therapeutic effect is reasonable, without further cost creative work, creative labor costs further, recognized as the 9 compounds which compounds have the therapeutic effect described in the instructions. The manual test cases recorded in the treatment of impotence can be determined by what kind of compounds. That is, if you want to confirm the technical staff in the field test of the invention specific compounds used in cases of which one needs to be re-screened, and Since the need to go through screening tests, it will have to pay in need of technical personnel to design creative work during the test and the test results to judge. The as said, 94192386.X No. inventions made public the contents of the patent specification is not sufficient to meet the twenty-six third paragraph of the Patent Law does not give full disclosure on the specific terms of the instructions in the required. In view of this situation, the patent invalidation by the requesting party and its agents in the third paragraph of the Patent Law Article six full disclosure provisions of the relevant instructions on the ground when the revocation of patents, examiners should pay particular attention to remind and judges in patent law terms of the relevant instructions to fully open the main issues in order to avoid this problem the inspector or judge ignored the request made by the adverse party's decisions and judgments. (Copyright ©, please indicate the source)