原创力文档- 1、本文档共54页，可阅读全部内容。
- 2、原创力文档（book118）网站文档一经付费（服务费），不意味着购买了该文档的版权，仅供个人/单位学习、研究之用，不得用于商业用途，未经授权，严禁复制、发行、汇编、翻译或者网络传播等，侵权必究。
- 3、本站所有内容均由合作方或网友上传，本站不对文档的完整性、权威性及其观点立场正确性做任何保证或承诺！文档内容仅供研究参考，付费前请自行鉴别。如您付费，意味着您自己接受本站规则且自行承担风险，本站不退款、不进行额外附加服务；查看《如何避免下载的几个坑》。如果您已付费下载过本站文档，您可以点击 这里二次下载。
- 4、如文档侵犯商业秘密、侵犯著作权、侵犯人身权等，请点击“版权申诉”（推荐），也可以打举报电话：400-050-0827(电话支持时间：9:00-18:30)。
查看更多
“ I don’t think necessity is the mother of invention
Canadian Patent Law
Chapter 7 - obviousness
? 2006-2007 Donald M. Cameron Ogilvy Renault LLP
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Jonathan Swift
Necessity may be the mother of invention, but play is certainly the father.
Roger von Oech
“I don’t think necessity is the mother of invention – invention, in my opinion, arises directly from idleness, possibly also from laziness. To save oneself trouble.”
Agatha Christie
table of contents
1. obviousness 1
1.1 Introduction 1
(a) Proper Subject Matter 3
(b) The inventive step 3
(c) The path 4
(d) The creator’s mind 5
a question of fact 5
1.2 The Cripps Question 6
(a) The Notional Skilled Worker 6
(b) Having Common General Knowledge and the Prior Art 7
mosaicing 8
(c) The Knowledge the Worker Possesses 9
common general knowledge 9
public knowledge 10
can’t focus on selected prior art in isolation 10
accessibility 10
paper patents are viewed with skepticism 11
(d) Motivation 12
(e) At the Date of Invention 12
first to invent system 12
first to file system 13
(f) Led Directly and Without Difficulty to the Solution 13
(g) The U.K. “Worth a try” test 13
The “worth a try” test is not the test for obviousness in Canada 15
The “obvious to try” test is also not the test in the U.S.A. 18
(h) experimentation 19
If research or experimentation was needed, the invention was not obvious 19
Cases quoting and following Lederman in Bayer v. Apotex 23
SmithKline Beecham Pharma Inc. v. Apotex Inc. 23
Baker Petrolite Corp. et al v. Canwell Enviro-Industries Ltd. et al 24
671905 Alberta Inc. et al v. Q’Max Solutions Inc. 24
Novartis AG v. Apotex Inc. 25
Pfizer Canada v. Apotex Inc. 25
Bayer v. Apotex 26
AB Hassle v. Genpharm Inc. 26
Procter Gamble Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of Health) 29
Janssen-Ortho v. Novopharm: levofloxacin #1 (the NOC case) 33
Confirmatory experiments are obvious 35
If trial and error are required, it can’t be obvious 38
Undue experimentation means it is not obvious 39
Following an obvious and w
文档评论（0）