1. (1) In this case, the "electronic thermostat for refrigerator" is a non-service invention. In this case, Guo "after learning that the "refrigerator thermostat" developed by an engineering college was unsuccessful, he used his spare time to raise funds on his own and finally trial-produced a "refrigerator thermostat" based on the thermostat. Refrigerator electronic thermostat prototype'". Later, when "the task was not assigned, Guo invited Wang, Zhu, Shen and others from the same department to form a trial production team, and based on the "prototype", Guo "Electronic Temperature Controller for Refrigerators", which shows that Guo's invention in this case does not meet several requirements for service inventions: ① Execute the tasks of the unit. This case does not explain Guo's duties and the unit did not assign tasks. ②The material and technical conditions of the utilization unit. In this case, it was not stated what important material conditions Guo’s unit provided. Therefore, the conditions for classifying Guo’s invention as a service invention are insufficient. A person who makes a creative contribution to the substantive features of an invention or design is jointly created by two or more inventors. In this case, all inventors are involved in the matter. The only person who invented the thermostat was Guo. Guo raised his own funds to trial-produce the "refrigerator electronic thermostat prototype". This is a substantial creation. People who participate in the invention but are engaged in auxiliary work cannot be regarded as inventions. People, such as Song and Guo’s wife in this case. If the other Wang, Zhu and Shen have contributed to the appearance of the thermostat, they can be regarded as designers. 2. According to the patent law. Article 18: The date when the patent administration department of the State Council receives the patent application documents is the filing date. In this case, Qi "filed an invention patent application for "Forest Remaining Waste Burning Equipment" to the State Patent Office on May 20, 2007, which was later rejected. Qi did not claim priority. Later, he refiled a utility model patent application on December 20, 2007, and the State Patent Office granted him the patent right on December 10, 2008. "Therefore, the application date for Qi's patent for "forest residual waste burning equipment" is December 20, 2007. (2) A certain furniture factory did not infringe Qi's patent rights. Because a certain furniture factory's "high-efficiency energy-saving furnace" uses Qi applied for the patent first, and the furniture factory has been using it within the scope of the factory. The "high-efficiency energy-saving furnace" and the "forest residual waste burning equipment" are identical in technical characteristics and meet the patent infringement exception provisions "in the patent application." "The same product has been manufactured, used the same method, or the necessary preparations for manufacturing and use have been made, and the manufacturing and use only continue within the original scope." The court ruled that patent infringement was not established. The above is my humble opinion, and everyone can learn from each other