Search

非顯而易知性的判斷標準，一直是美國專利法實務與學界想要嘗試解決的問題之一。本文認為，由於客觀證據與時間因素，可呈現出發明當時的狀態，因此，符合美國專利法第103 條的文義要求，而應被優先考量。因此，本文嘗試將最高法院於Graham 案中提出的「輔助性判斷因素」，加入美國學界所提出之「時間判斷法」判斷架構中，主張若有客觀證據可證明，同業與發明人面臨相同的發明條件，卻只有發明人成功解決他人無法克服的需求，則發明即可合理被認為非顯而易知。本研究之最大貢獻在於克服先前判斷標準之判斷困境，特別是在KSR 案中仍未解決的後見偏差問題。 The test of obviousness has long been a problem which the courts and scholars in U.S. are trying to resolve. This Article argues the objective indicia and the timing of invention should have priority when considering nonobviousness, because these factors can demonstrate the conditions at the time the invention was made and therefore fit the requirement of Section 103 of Patent Law. Hence, this Article tries to merge “Secondary Consideration” mentioned in Graham case by Supreme Court with “the Timing Approach” raised by scholar, and argues if there are objective evidences to prove that the person having ordinary skill in the art faces the same conditions of invention, only the inventor can resolve the problem successfully while others cannot, then the invention can be reasonably seen as nonobvious. The most contribution of this research is overcoming problems of previous tests of nonobviousness, especially the hindsight problem which was still not solved in KSR case. solved in KSR case.