新颖性 - 对外经济贸易大学教学辅助平台.ppt

知识产权法 卢海君 第三编 专利权制度 第二章 专利客体制度 第一节 专利权的客体范围 一、发明 二、实用新型 三、外观设计 四、专利客体的排除领域 第三编 专利权制度 第二章 专利客体制度 第二节 专利权客体的要件（可专利性） 一、发明和实用新型专利的授权要件 （一）新颖性 （二）创造性 （三）实用性 二、外观设计专利的授权条件 （一）新颖性 （二）合法性：不与他人的在先权利相冲突 （三）美感性 （四）实用性 三、丧失新颖性的例外 第三编 专利权制度 第二章 专利客体制度 第一节 专利权的客体范围 一、专利权的客体范围一般 （一）美国专利法有关专利权客体范围的规定 第三编 专利权制度 有生命的生物体（living organisms）、数学公式（mathematical algorithms）、自然法则（law of nature）、商业方法（business method）可否获得专利法的保护？ 第三编 专利权制度 可专利性的客体（patentable subject matter）或专利的合法性（patent eligibility）同其他可专利性要求并不是完全分离，这些要求包括新颖性、实用性、非显而易见性和公开要求。 思考问题： 1、按照专利的合法性被否定专利权保护的可否根据其他可专利性标准予以否定？ 2、专利法为什么要否定某些类型的发明以专利权保护？其中有哪些政策考量？ 第三编 专利权制度 The bar to patenting Laws of nature, physical phenomena and abstract ideas. O’Reilly v. Morse OReilly v. Morse, also known as The Telegraph Patent Case, is an 1853 decision of the United States Supreme Court that has been highly influential in the development of the law of patent-eligibility in regard to claimed inventions in the field of computer-software related art. It holds, essentially, that an abstract idea, apart from its implementation, is not patent-eligible. O’Reilly v. Morse Background The problem that would-be telegraphers faced in the early 19th century is explained in the Courts opinion:The great difficulty in their way was the fact that the galvanic current, however strong in the beginning, became gradually weaker as it advanced on the wire; and was not strong enough to produce a mechanical effect, after a certain distance had been traversed.” To send a signal from Baltimore to Washington would require thousands of volts and high currents – not feasible at a time when managing to make a pickled frog’s legs twitch, as Luigi Galvani and Alessandro Volta did, was the major achievement of the electro-galvanic force. O’Reilly v. Morse Samuel Morse’s “plan [was] combining two or more electric or galvanic circuits, with independent batteries for the purpose of overcoming the diminished force of electromagnetism in long circuits.” The concep