Case Study Of The Combination Of Prior Art

The third modification in patent law,there a new adding new authorizationrequirements to design patent.According to the paragraph2of article23in patentlaw:"when a design which is to be granted a patent is compared with the combinationof existing designs and existing design features,there must be obvious differece."Apparently, according to the provisions above, a design should not be granted designpatent right if it don’t meet this authorization;even an authorized can be declared to beinvalid by the Reexamination Board if it cannot meet this request.Though Refinements appear in the relevent regulations the patent examinationguide in2010of China, there there are still a lot of new problems need furtherclarification in our judicial practice.The purpose of this article can be devided intothere parts,which are,1)what should be "the obvious difference",2)who can be thejudge——"general consumers" or "designers in art" of a design when compared withthe combination of existing design or exsiting design features;3)what should be thescope of existing design of a design patent when compares with the combination ofexisting designs and existing design feartures.The author of this paper search UnitedStates’ and Europe’s statute laws and cases as a foundation respectively with existingdesign combination proved more our country and the related case as the foundationin the analysis.The first chapter of the paper basically solve a problem that how to judge itsobvious difference of a design when compared with combined prior art. This chapter introduces the United States Whitman Saddle Saddle case, added with the practice ofEurope and the rules of our country,aiming to discusses the standard that he overallvisual impression should first of all be taken into consideration on these occations.The second chapter basically solve the question that who can be the right man tobe a proper judge in the situation that a design is sought to be compared withcombination of prior arts or their feartures. An American Titan tire case is beingintroduced to analysis that an "general consumerr" shall be the best choice underanalysis "ordinary observer"of America and "informed users" of the EuropeanCommunity.The third chapter basically solve the problem that which kind of prior art shouldbe chose under the situation above.This chapter try to find an answer going with theUnited States Glavas swimming float case and Rosen coffee table case and points outthat there’s no categories in design but whether they are so related that the appearanceof certain ornamental features in one would suggest the application of those featuresto the other.By reviewing several cases relevant to combination design of the United Statesand the European Union，This paper attempts to reach a purpose to clarify theproblems when turning the law of the second paragraph of article23in patent law forpractice.