| In the judicial practice of patent law, the first requirement of effective protection is to determine the scope of protection of the patent right, only draw the scope of protection of the patent right, clear the boundaries of patent technology and known technology, can be effectively protected. The interpretation of the claims is the key to determining the scope of patent protection, the instructions' sufficient disclosure for the purposes of interpreting the claims, is indispensable. The ability of the person skilled in the art plays a key role in judging sufficient disclosure or not. In the process of patent examination and indeed the right Doctrine of Estoppel to claim the scope of protection can not be ignored.Through the analysis of small i robot patent invalid case, by means of relevant theory and judicial practice specifically discussed cases of several controversial focus, namely game servers is used to implement game functions is whether sufficiently disclosed by the instruction or not, with regard to the interpretation of claim 1, understanding the ability of the person skilled in the art, whether " Doctrine of Estoppel" is applicable in patent invalid case or not. Final conclusions are as follows:Although there are some flaws in the application documents on writing, especially in the game server and implement game features description is too simple, but this does not lead to the application documents do not satisfy the requirements of sufficient disclosure. The court held that since the records of the "game server" feature, then one must realize the new "anthropomorphic" game features, and then to clearly record how to relize this new "anthropomorphic" game function claim, which is already Reconstruction of the patent claim 1, an increase of claims 1 itself does not define content. For patentee statements about "game server" apply "Doctrine of Estoppel", the court further put forward higher requirements on how to achieve "anthropomorphic" game features, which is debatable. |
PDF Full Text Request