Practical solutions to technical problems are often directly related to creative conclusions. For example, a patent requests to protect the screen unlocking mode of a touch-screen handheld electronic device (mobile phone), that is, the commonly used unlocking mode of sliding from left to right, while the comparison file discloses the unlocking mode of clicking numbers, and the main difference is only here.
At this time, if the actual technical problem is determined as "how to unlock the screen by sliding", it is easy to draw the conclusion that sliding is not creative, because it belongs to the common technical means in this field. But in fact, the technical problem actually solved in this case should be more accurately expressed as "how to improve the convenience of unlocking handheld electronic equipment and avoid false locking", and such a practical technical problem is not so easy to draw creative conclusions.
It can be seen that the determination of practical solutions to technical problems is often ignored in the creative three-step method, but it is very important in practice.
Back to the question discussed in this paper-how many technical problems should be determined by multiple distinctive features? The author thinks that the solution of this problem should be judged from the perspective of invention conception, and then it needs to be divided into two steps, or two aspects.
When the claim has multiple distinguishing features on the surface compared with the nearest prior art, the process of determining the distinguishing features and technical problems includes two aspects: First, is there a technical connection between these features? Based on the consideration of the inventive concept, the actual distinguishing features are determined from the technical relevance, that is, whether multiple distinguishing features on the surface are determined as one distinguishing feature or only multiple distinguishing features; The second is to determine the corresponding technical problems according to the determined distinctive features.
It can be seen that when determining the distinguishing features and the technical problems actually solved by the invention, it is necessary to accurately grasp the inventive concept of the application and consider the technical internal relationship between these distinguishing features based on the inventive concept. This is the key to accurately determine the practical solutions to technical problems.
If these distinctive features are interrelated and interactive in the technical sense, and they jointly solve a technical problem, then these distinctive features should not be treated separately to determine the technical problems, but should be regarded as a whole to determine the technical problems to be solved. On the contrary, if the distinguishing features are relatively independent from each other, they can be treated separately, so as to determine the technical problems to be solved.
Below, the author shares three typical cases, two of which are related to internal technology and one is not.
The case 1 is technically related.
In the invalid decision No.28625 (20 142028 1672. X), the related patent relates to a three-axis voice coil motor with five coils, which is used to control the tilting motion of the lens. Compared with the one closest to the prior art, it has six remarkable features: (a) a housing consisting of a bottom cover and a yoke, (b) a lens holder arranged in the housing, and four lenses evenly distributed around the lens holder. (c) at least 65,438+0 spring pieces connecting the end of the lens holder and the end of the housing; (d) the focusing coil is wrapped around one end of the lens holder; Magnets interacting with the deflection coil and the focusing coil are arranged on the inner wall of the yoke; (e) the deflection coil and the focusing coil control the lens holder to deflect in at least three degrees of freedom; And (f) four magnets are uniformly arranged on the inner wall of the yoke, each magnet corresponding to the lateral direction of the deflection coil.
According to the patent claim and specification, the existing voice coil motor is driven by multiple groups of motors, which is bulky and the corresponding parts cannot be shared, resulting in many parts, complex structure and time-consuming assembly. The scheme of this patent is that the magnets of two groups of motors are set to be used (corresponding to different features D and F), that is, the deflection coil and the focusing coil use one magnet. In addition, the magnet is arranged on the yoke, and the end of the lens holder and the end of the housing are connected by spring parts (corresponding to the distinguishing features A, B and C), thus realizing the image stabilizer with three degrees of freedom (corresponding to the distinguishing feature E), thus greatly simplifying the number of parts and the motor structure.
From the above analysis, it can be seen that the above six distinguishing features are technically related and should be considered as a whole. Based on the above technical features, Claim 1 aims to solve the technical problem of providing an image-stabilized voice coil motor with reduced volume, simple structure and multiple degrees of freedom by using magnets and setting the positional relationship between magnets and other components. On this basis, it is concluded that the combination of claim 1 is more creative than the comparison documents 1 and 2.
Case 2 is technically relevant.
In the invalid decision No.27653 (20110058431. X), the patent involved claims to protect a pattern flexible transparent conductive film and its manufacturing method. Claim 1 differs from reference document 2 in that: (1) the geometric shape and line width d of the groove net satisfy a× b > t, where t is the required light transmittance of the transparent conductive film, b is the ratio of the light transmission area outside the groove net to the total surface area of the film, and a is the visible light transmittance of the composite transparent material; (2) The radial section of any section of the groove network is that the ratio of groove depth to groove width is greater than 1. The Patent Reexamination Board believes that the purpose of distinguishing technical features (1) is to make the final transparent conductive film as high as possible by adjusting the shape and line width of the groove network. The purpose of distinguishing technical feature (2) is to improve the conductivity of the conductive film.
Although the technical problems solved by the above two distinguishing features are shared by the technicians in this field, by reading the background technology of this patent and analyzing the overall technical scheme of this patent, and using the knowledge and ability of the technicians in this field, we can know that the invention purpose of this patent is to improve the light transmittance and ensure good conductivity at the same time, and all the technicians in this field know that if only one of them is improved without ensuring it at the same time, its products will not meet the requirements of industrial practicality.
Therefore, the above two salient features are inseparable and technically related. On this basis, it should be determined that the technical problem to be solved is to ensure the good transmittance and conductivity of the film at the same time. On this basis, it is concluded that claim 1 is more creative than the combination of reference document 2 and common sense.
There is no technical connection in case three.
In the invalid decision 21286 (201020695500.9), the patent involved claimed to protect a high-pressure portable pool. The difference between the claim 1 and the reference document 1 is that (1) a plurality of strings with two ends respectively connected with the inner and outer tank walls are arranged between the inner and outer tank walls, and these strings are basically perpendicular to the inner and outer tank walls and have the same length; (2) The inflatable pool wall consists of an inner pool wall and an outer pool wall, and the inner pool wall and the outer pool wall are bonded together through a top layer and a bottom layer to form an independent air chamber. The Patent Reexamination Board believes that through the analysis of the overall technical scheme of this patent, it can be seen that there is no relationship between the two distinguishing features that can exceed their independent effects, but the features are only parallel, and they independently solve their respective technical problems-the first distinguishing feature solves the following problems: due to the uniform distribution and high density of strings, high strength and low elongation, the wall of the inflatable pool can reach a very high air pressure value after inflation; The second distinguishing feature relates to the bonding mode of the pool wall, which solves the problems of high strength and rigidity, good comfort and long service life of the inflatable pool. When there is no correlation or interaction between different features, they can be treated separately, and their respective technical problems can be determined through these different features, so as to judge the creativity of the claim. Meanwhile, if a set of features and their technical effects have no technical enlightenment in the prior art, the claim 1 will be creative.
label
From the three cases shared above, it can be seen that judging the technical relationship between a plurality of seemingly different features from the perspective of invention conception will make the solution of the problem of "determination of actually solving technical problems" clear and objective, rather than relying solely on the subjective judgment of technicians in the field.
From the summary of many cases, we can know that the so-called interconnection and interaction can be considered from the front, such as the conditional relationship in working mode, the cooperative relationship in mechanical structure, the chemical reaction of substances and so on. These relationships exist and can be considered as interrelated and interactive; On the other hand, if a distinguishing feature is separated from one or more other distinguishing features, and its due role in the technical scheme of the invention cannot be realized, that is, it is technically subordinate, it can be considered to be interrelated and interactive.
If we analyze the distinctive features from the above ideas and find that they are interrelated and interactive in the technical sense, and they work together to solve a technical problem, we should not treat them separately and separately to determine the technical problem, but take these interrelated and interactive distinctive features as a whole, so as to determine the technical problem to be solved and draw accurate creative conclusions.