2011 Xing-Zhuan-Su-Zi 109, Intellectual Property Court


Source:Wideband Patent Success Case
2016/01/10
 

[Success Case]
Case No. 2011 Xing-Zhuan-Su-Zi 109, Intellectual Property Court
 
[Decision Digest]
Based on the instructions in claim 2 or 5 specified in the said exhibit 2, the person of ordinary skill in the art can easily accomplish the invention in claim 1 of the patent at issue by slightly changing the technology disclosed in Drawings 4-6 of exhibit 2. Therefore, exhibit 2 can prove that claim 1 of the patent at issue lacks non-obviousness.


Related articles
2015 Jing-Su-Zi 10406302040
2015 Xing-Zhuan-Su-Zi 27, Intellectual Property Court
2014 Jing-Su-Zi 10306108380
2014 Min-Zhuan-Su-Zi 40, Intellectual Property Court.
Author of the article
2015 Jing-Su-Zi 10406302040
2015 Xing-Zhuan-Su-Zi 27, Intellectual Property Court
2014 Jing-Su-Zi 10306108380
2014 Min-Zhuan-Su-Zi 40, Intellectual Property Court.

 
AboutArticlesServiceContactDisclaimer
© Wideband IP Office 廣流智權事務所