The following is a patent invalidation case that a friend of mine’s company entrusted Jinjian Spacetime Law Firm to represent. I upload it for your reference. I hope it can help you
200420065266.6
Document serial number: 2010091900167610
Case number: 5W100099
Invention title: A combination transformer
Patentee: He Pai Zhi
Invalidation requester: Zhongshan Pioneer Electric Co., Ltd.
According to the provisions of Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Patent Law, the Patent Reexamination Board issued a After reviewing the request for invalidation filed by the patent right, the decision is now as follows:
Declaring all patent rights invalid.
The patent right is declared partially invalid.
Keep the patent valid.
According to the provisions of Article 46, Paragraph 2 of the Patent Law, if you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you may file a lawsuit with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court within 3 months from the date of receipt of this notice. The other party shall serve as the third party. Three people took part in the proceedings.
Attachment: Decide on 3 pages of text (the text starts from page 2).
Collegial panel leader: Li Xi
Chief reviewer: Zhan Jingkang
Session reviewer: Shen Li
People of the People’s Republic of China* **Patent Reexamination Committee of the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China.
Invalidation request review decision (No. 15328).
Case number: No. 5W100099.
Decision date: September 15, 2010.
Patent number: 200420065266.6.
Name of the invention: a combined transformer.
International classification number: H01F38/20.
Requester for invalidation declaration: Zhongshan Pioneer Electric Co., Ltd.
The address of the invalidation requester: Tongle Industrial Park, Dongfeng Town, Zhongshan City.
The attorney appointed by the petitioner for invalidation declaration is: Deng Qingzheng.
The address of the attorney appointed by the invalidation requester: Room E and F, 15th Floor, Xingzhong Building, Xingzhong Road, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Jinjian Spacetime Law Firm.
Patentee: He Paizhi.
Patentee’s address: No. 8, Jianye Road, Dongfeng Town, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province.
The patentee’s authorized agent: Ding Xiangjun.
The address of the patentee’s authorized agent is: 1st Floor, Science Museum, No. 8, Xingzhong Road, Zhongshan City, Guangdong Province.
Date of request for invalidation: February 20, 2010.
Legal basis: Article 22, paragraph 3, of the Patent Law.
Decision points: When evaluating the inventive step of a utility model patent, the prior art generally focuses on the technical field to which the utility model patent belongs. Only when there is clear enlightenment in the prior art, such as clear records in the prior art, prompting those skilled in the art to search for relevant technical means in similar or related technical fields, then similar or related technologies can be considered. field.
1. Cause of action
This request for invalidation involves the authorization announcement by the State Intellectual Property Office of the People's Republic of China and the State Council on March 30, 2005, titled "A Combination Mutual Inductance" The patent number of this patent is 200420065266.6, the priority date is January 17, 2004, and the application date is May 23, 2004. Why does the patentee arrange the branches?
The contents of claims 1-5 when the patent authorization was announced are as follows:
1. A combined transformer, including a metal guide rod (1), a porcelain bottle (2), Current coil (8), voltage coil (9) and transformer oil (7) are characterized in that the box (10) is a closed hexahedron; several steel plates are connected to the front and rear plates (4) of the box (10) sleeve (5), connect the cylindrical insulating material (6) to the steel sleeve (5), connect the porcelain bottle to the insulating material (6), and connect the metal guide rod (1) to the porcelain bottle (2); on the side of the box (10) Connect the steel sleeve (11) to the flat plate, connect the insulating material (6) in the steel sleeve (11), and connect the secondary connection bolt (3) in the insulating material (6).
2. A combined transformer according to claim 1, characterized in that the inner walls of the steel sleeves (5) and (11) are threaded grooves (12); the end of the porcelain bottle (2) The bottom part is a corrugated body (13).
3. A combined transformer according to claim 1, characterized in that the current wire garden (8) in the upper part of the box (10) is connected to the porcelain ring (2); 10) Connect the lower part to the voltage coil (9).
4. A combined transformer according to claim 1, characterized in that there are six steel sleeves (5) connected to the front and rear plates (4) of the box (10). ; The number of porcelain bottles (2) is also 6.
5. A combined transformer according to claim 1, characterized in that transformer oil (7) is filled in the box (10)."
For this patent , Zhongshan Pioneer Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) submitted a request for invalidation to the Patent Reexamination Board on February 20, 2010. The reason was that claims 1 to 5 of this patent were different from attachments 1, 2, 3, and 4. It does not possess the inventive step stipulated in Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law, and requested to declare claims 1-5 of this patent invalid, and submitted the following evidence:
Attachment 1: ZL99222574.4 authorization announcement text, The announcement date is March 15, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as comparison document 1), ***8 pages;
Attachment 2: ZL95220528.9 authorization announcement text, the announcement date is October 29, 1997 ( (hereinafter referred to as comparative document 2), ***8 pages;
Attachment 3: ZL99233184.6 authorization announcement text, the announcement date is March 15, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as comparative document 3), *** 5 pages;
Attachment 4: ZL97248063.3 authorization announcement text, announcement date is May 26, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as comparison document 4), ***8 pages;
The petitioner believes that it does not require creative effort to obtain the technical solution of claim 1 of this patent on the basis of reference document 1 and combined with reference document 2 and common knowledge, and claim 1 does not involve creative effort in the comparison of the additional technical features of claim 2. The additional technical features of claim 3 are disclosed in reference document 1; the additional technical features of claim 4 are obvious; the additional technical features of claim 5 are disclosed in reference document 1, so claims 2-5 are not Possessing creativity.
After passing the formal examination, the Patent Reexamination Board accepted the above request for invalidation on March 23, 2010 and forwarded the request for invalidation and copies of the evidence to the patentee, and established a collegial meeting. The team will review the case.
The collegial team of the Patent Reexamination Board issued an oral hearing notice to both parties on June 10, 2010, and scheduled an oral hearing on July 19, 2010.
The oral hearing was held as scheduled, and both parties attended the oral hearing. Both parties made no request to withdraw from the collegial panel members and the clerk, and had no objection to the invalidity reasons raised by the collegial panel of the case against the petitioner. , evidence and facts were investigated. During the trial, the patentee had no objection to the authenticity, legality and relevance of the comparison documents 1-4. The petitioner made it clear that the reasons for the invalidation were consistent with the written opinion. The technical field of Document 1 is different from that of this patent and cannot be used as the closest prior art evidence to evaluate the inventiveness of this patent. On this basis, claim 1 is inventive, and its dependent claims 2-5 are also inventive. The collegial panel believes that the facts of this case are clear and can make a review decision.
2. Reasons for the decision
The petitioner believes that it does not require inventive step to obtain the technical solution of claim 1 of this patent on the basis of reference document 1, combined with reference document 2 and common knowledge. Labor, claim 1 does not involve inventive step. The additional technical features of claim 2 are disclosed in reference document 1; the additional technical features of claim 3 are disclosed in reference document 3; the additional technical features of claim 4 are obvious: the additional technical features of claim 5 are disclosed in reference document 1 , therefore claims 2 to 5 are not inventive. It can be seen that all of the petitioner’s reasons for invalidation involve inventive step, and all refer to Reference Document 1 as the closest prior art.
Article 22, Paragraph 3 of the Patent Law stipulates that the creativity of a utility model means that the utility model has substantial features and progress compared with the existing technology.
Section 4 of Chapter 6 of Part 4 of the "Examination Guidelines" stipulates that the standard of inventive step for utility model patents should be lower than that of invention patents. …For utility model patents, the general focus is on the technical field to which the utility model patent belongs. However, if the prior art provides clear inspiration, for example, there are clear records in the prior art, prompting those skilled in the art to search for relevant technical means in similar or related technical fields, the similar or related technical fields may be considered.
First of all, this patent relates to "a combination transformer", which is an electrical device used for power grid metering and billing. To realize the function of power grid metering and billing, its classification number is H01F38/20 . Reference Document 1 discloses a "fully enclosed discharge coil", which is an integral part of the power transmission and transformation system equipment. Its function is to be used in parallel with the parallel capacitor bank or filter capacitor bank in the power transmission and transformation equipment. , when the capacitor bank is powered off, the electric field energy of the capacitor bank is released safely and quickly to ensure the safety of the capacitor bank during reclosing and the safety of maintenance personnel (see the first paragraph of page 1 of the instruction manual of Comparative Document 1). Comparison The classification number of Document 1 is H01F5/00. It can be seen that the technical solution in Reference Document 1 and the technical solution in this patent are different in terms of application fields and functions, and they obviously belong to different technical fields.
Secondly, the petitioner did not provide any evidence to show that there are clear records in the prior art, which can prompt those skilled in the field to search for relevant technical means in the technical field covered by Reference Document 1 and apply them here. Patented technical fields.
In summary, Reference Document 1 cannot be used as a reference document to evaluate whether this patent possesses inventiveness. On this basis, all the invalid reasons raised by the petitioner cannot be established.
3. Decision
To maintain the validity of the utility model patent No. 200420065266.6.
If the party concerned is dissatisfied with this decision, it may file a lawsuit with the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court within three months from the date of receipt of this decision in accordance with the provisions of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Patent Law. According to the provisions of this paragraph, after one party files a lawsuit, the other party participates in the lawsuit as a third party