China: An Invention-Creation Should Be Evaluated As An Organic Whole Zhongquan CAO V. Patent Reexamination Board(Article No. 14 From "China Patent Case Review 2015" By Beijing East IP Ltd.)

Oil-preserving Apparatus for a Bevel Gearset in a Sharpening Mechanism of a Cutt

Zhongquan CAO v. the Patent Reexamination Board - An Invention-creation Should be Evaluated as an Organic Whole (Administrative Judgment (2012) Xing Ti Zi No.7 by the Supreme People's Court on May 3,2012)

A technical solution refers to a collection of technical means that are adopted to solve a technical problem and utilize the laws of nature. Generally, a technical means is embodied by one or more technical features. When an invention-creation, especially inventiveness of a claim, is evaluated, usually a standard three-step method is adopted. However, there is a deviation that an invention-creation is NOT evaluated as an organic whole and a claim is divided as several fragmented parts and the respective parts are evaluated separately. However, such kind of evaluation is inappropriate. In this case, the Supreme People's Court emphasized that an invention-creation should be evaluated as a whole.

In this case, a utility model patent No. ZL 200520014575.5 titled "An Oil-preserving Apparatus for a Bevel Gearset in a Sharpening Mechanism of a Cutting Machine" ("the involved patent" hereinafter) has the following four claims:

  1. "An oil-preserving apparatus for a bevel gearset in a sharpening mechanism of a cutting machine, characterized in that an oil blocking wall (4) is arranged around a bevel gear position (2) and an intermediate gear position (3).
  2. The oil-preserving apparatus of Claim 1characterized in that the wall (4) is provided with a gap that enables the intermediate gear inside the wall to engage with a transmitting gear outside the wall.
  3. The oil-preserving apparatus of Claim 2characterized in that the wall (4) is integrated with a bevel gear box (8) or a sharpening grinder box(1).
  4. The oil-preserving apparatus of Claim 1characterized in that an arc cover plate (7) is provided on a transmitting gear (5) outside the wall (6)."

According to the description and claims of the patent, the patent is directed toward the problem of oil-preserving lubrication of the gear set in the cutting machine. To solve the problem, an oil blocking wall is arranged around the bevel gear position and the intermediate gear position to preserve the splashing lube around the bevel gear. Furthermore, an arc cover plate is provided on the position of the transmitting gear outside the wall, to prevent the lube inside the wall from being thrown out.

The Patent Reexamination Board made an examination decision No. 13216 for invalidation request on April 14, 2009, wherein it declared that all of the claims of the involved patent are invalid. In the examination decision, the panel held that all of the claims of the involved patent do not possess inventiveness over the disclosure of attachment 5-1 (US3672586).

The disclosure in attachment 5-1 relates to lubrication in a lubrication system for a winding machine. In the attachment 5-1, the lubrication system that comprises a slinger 160, gears 146, 150, a shield 200 and aprons 206 is mainly used to obtain lubricant from a sump 162 and to transport the lubricant to the components that require lubrication. A straight forward portion 200A, a cylindrical section 200B, a rearward quadrant 200C of the shield 200 and the aprons 206 are set to serve the above technical functions. In view of this, the shield 200 is provided with an oil inlet to obtain the lubricant from the sump, and the aprons 206 are provided with passageways 204 to receive the lubricant.

That is to say, the involved patent is to keep the lube around the gears so as to prevent the lube from leaking to outside, thereby achieving excellent lubrication of the gears and preventing the fabric from being polluted by the lube. However, the solution of the attachment 5-1 is to effectively transport the lubricant to the components that require lubrication within the winding machine. The shield 200 and the aprons 206 are set to transport the lubricant outside, rather than to keep the lubricant around the gear set and to keep the lubricant from leaking to outside as in the involved patent.

The left figure below shows an overall structure of the involved patent, while the right figure shows an overall structure of the attachment 5-1.

In the invalidation procedure, the patentee of the involved patent amended the claims by incorporating claim 2 into claim 1 to form a new independent claim 1. The panel adopted the standard three-step method, and held that the differences between the new claim 1 and the solution of attachment 5-1 lie in that: (1) the involved patent is aimed at a sharpening mechanism of a cutting machine, while the application environment of attachment 5-1 is a winding machine; and (2) in the involved patent the intermediate gear is engaged with an external transmitting gear, while in the attachment 5-1 gear 146 is coupled with a drive screw. Then, the panel further alleged that the above differences are all common sense in the art, and thus the new independent claim 1 does not possess inventiveness. In the examination opinions with respect to claim 3 (the original claim 4), the panel held that the aprons 206 are coupled with the straight forward portion 200A, the cylindrical section 200B and the rearward quadrant 200C of the shield 200, and the structure formed by this coupling functions to keep the lubricant around the gears. Therefore, the panel held that the aprons 206 in the attachment 5-1 are technically equivalent to the arc cover plate in claim 3.

In the subsequent procedures of administrative litigation, the courts of the first instance and second instance adopted the opinions set forth by the panel of the PRB.

In the retrial request, the petitioner (the patentee) submitted arguments that the feature in claim 1 of the involved patent, i.e., "an oil blocking wall (4) is arranged around a bevel gear position (2) and an intermediate gear position (3)," functions to keep the lubricant around the bevel gear set, so as to prevent the fabric for cut from being polluted. While in the attachment 5-1 there is a shield 200 that opens up and down, so as to spray the lubricant from the sump at the bottom to the outside of the shield 200, that is, this arrangement has an effect of "transportation", rather than keeping the lubricant inside the shield 200. Moreover, the additional technical feature of the amended claim 3, i.e., "an arc cover plate (7) is provided on a transmitting gear (5) outside the wall (6)," functions to directly keep the lubricant around the transmitting gear. The aprons 206 in the attachment 5-1 function to receive the lubricant sprayed from bottom to top and to transport the lubricant to other components that require lubrication, that is, this arrangement has an effect of "reception."

With respect to the above arguments, the Supreme People's Court held that when evaluate whether an invention-creation possesses inventiveness, not only the technical solution itself of the invention-creation, but also the following factors should be taken into consideration: the technical field that the invention-creation belongs to, the technical problem that the invention-creation solves, and the technical effect that the invention-creation produces. The above factors should be considered as a whole, which means that the aspects of the technical principle, the technical conception, the technical effect, and the like of the invention-creation should be considered comprehensively. Regarding this case, the Supreme People's Court alleged that the solution of the lubrication system disclosed in the attachment 5-1 mainly functions to solve the technical problem of transporting the lubricant effectively, in order to realize lubrication of the internal components in the winding machine, rather than prevent the fabric from being polluted by the splashing lubricant as in the involved patent. Based on the technical solution disclosed in the attachment 5-1, those skilled in the art would have no motivation to improve the features of shield 200 and aprons 206 in the lubrication system, and then apply them into the sharpening mechanism of the cutting machine, so as to solve the technical problem to be solved by the involved patent, i.e., to prevent splashing of the lubricant and keep the lubricant around the bevel gear.

In the above invalidation procedure, the panel failed to take into consideration the substantial difference between the solution of the involved patent and that of the attachment 5-1; rather, the panel tried to adopt some analytical skills to find the "objective" correspondences between the features disclosed in the reference and the features in the claims of the involved patent. From the perspective of the invention concept, it seems that there exist significant differences between the solution of the involved patent and that of the attachment 5-1. However, the panel improperly splits a claim of the involved patent, which should be considered as a whole, into several features so as to "find" the corresponding parts in the reference, thereby reaching the conclusion that the claims of the involved patent do not possess inventiveness. And in the procedures of the first and second instances, the judge also failed to correct this improper practice.

In addition, in the substantive examination procedure, the following situations are often encountered: the examiner splits a claim as a whole into several isolated "technical features" and evaluate each of these features separately, and then seeks to locate the corresponding description for each feature in the references or simply asserts one or more features belong to common sense in the art, regardless of the overall conception of the technical solution.

However, such method of evaluation for a claim is not appropriate. For an invention-creation, first it should be considered as a whole so as to grasp its substance. That is to say, an invention-creation should be evaluated comprehensively based on several aspects, such as the technical field(s) involved by the invention-creation, the technical problem(s) to be solved by the invention-creation, the technical effect(s) produced by the invention-creation, and the like; that is, the principle and conception of the invention-creation should be taken into consideration, such that the technical solution defined by a claim can be evaluated as an organic whole. The legal professionals, such as the examiners, the judges, the attorneys, etc., should always be reminded that legal analysis tools and skills are to serve for ascertaining the facts, rather than the reverse. Regarding the present case, if the solutions of the involved patent and the attachment 5-1 can be considered comprehensively as a whole by the Patent Reexamination Board and the first and second instances, the large amount of complex analysis used to obtain an improper conclusion would be unnecessary.

In case of overall consideration, a technical solution should be evaluated in a unit of feature. That is, two extreme cases should be avoided: one is to evaluate the technical conception as a whole, and the other is to split a complete claim into several fragmented parts to evaluate the respective part separately. To accomplish this, the followings should be paid attention to: the relationship between the claims and the description; the selection of the most pertinent prior art; and the division of features.

The association between the claims and the description, especially the effect of the description on explanation of the claims, has been discussed substantially before. Here, one should be emphasized is that, due to limitations of the language expressions, when a claim is considered as a whole, the technical solution claimed by that claim should be necessarily interpreted in conjunction with the description. This means one or more terms used in the claims should be interpreted in connection with the contexts in which one or more terms are placed. For example, the terms of "oil-preserving apparatus" and "oil blocking wall" in the present case. The intention to define clearly the protection scope by a claim itself is good, but in the practice the description cannot be ignored and must be memorized, especially in the substantive examination procedure.

Regarding the selection of the most pertinent prior art, an overall invention concept should be considered, based on the author's understanding. If an overall concept of a prior art is pertinent, then naturally the number of related features being disclosed by the prior art is large. Furthermore, most of the present inventions belong to "improved-type" invention, and usually there will exist prior arts that have the pertinent technical conception. In the current examination practice, it is often the case that the most pertinent prior art for an invention only has the similar technical field, but discloses few of the technical features in the claim to be evaluated, and sometimes even only discloses the contents in the preceding portion. And the examiner would regard most of the features in the claim as distinguishing technical features and then allege that such distinguishing technical features have been disclosed or belong to common sense in the art; however, it is hard to say that this method of evaluation is reasonable.

One of the most common problems in the division of technical features is that the features in one claim are split into several fragmented parts and the respective parts are evaluated separately. Among many precedents, one of the problems is that a feature is punctuated inappropriately and then being held that the punctuated portion is not clear; a further problem arises when the contexts in a claim are not taken into consideration and being held in an isolated way that a certain feature is not supported by the description; even further problem arises where a claim is split into several isolated parts and the similar content for each part is searched in the prior arts respectively, and sometimes a part of them is regarded as common sense in the art if the similar content cannot be found. All of the above cases do not comply with the requirements that an invention-creation should be considered as a whole.

Moreover, in the division of technical features, sometimes the connection relationship and the signal flow should also be taken into consideration, as well as some feature points that are not obvious in the claims. This is because the connection relationship and the signal flow are also technical features that shall not be ignored, especially in the inventions of electrical field. The feature points that are not obvious are usually some terms that can be interpreted in connection with the description and should not be ignored.

In practice, when the claims are drafted, it is necessary that the claims should reflect the substance of the technical solution in a clear and complete way, and the technical features embodying the invention point should be highlighted. Furthermore, the embodiments should be described clearly based on the description and the accompanied drawings. Especially, structural features should be clearly indicated in the drawings and should be described in conjunction with the drawings in a "look-and-say" way. Regarding this case, the substance of the technical solution of the present invention is not obviously reflected in the claims, and the descriptions in the detailed description are not sufficiently clear either. Otherwise, a different result might be obtained in the initial invalidation procedure. In addition, what should be emphasized is that when an attorney encounters with the examiner's opinions that ignore the overall conception of the technical solution, he/she should have the courage to insist his/her arguments so as to obtain a reasonable result by an appropriate communication with the examiner.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
CCPIT Patent & Trademark Law Office
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions