Original title: How to judge the simple superposition of technical features in utility model patents
A small preface to a text
When judging whether the utility model patent is obvious to the technicians in this field, we should consider this patent and the technical scheme in the prior art as a whole based on the knowledge and ability of the technicians in this field. In other words, it is necessary to consider whether the technical features in the technical scheme are interrelated and coordinated with each other, so as to form a complete technical scheme together and solve the corresponding technical problems. If these technical features are interrelated and interact to solve the corresponding technical problems, they should not be separated, but should be considered as a whole whether the existing technology is open or give corresponding technical enlightenment; If the technical scheme is simply composed of various technical features, and each technical feature works independently to complete its own function, these technical features can be considered separately to determine whether the existing technology is open or give corresponding technical enlightenment.
Conceptual elaboration
The fourth section of Chapter 6 of Part IV of the Patent Examination Guide stipulates that for a utility model, one or two existing technologies can generally be cited to evaluate its creativity, and for a utility model patent formed by "simple superposition" of existing technologies, multiple existing technologies can be cited to evaluate its creativity according to the situation. "Simple superposition" is a combined invention. The Patent Examination Guide stipulates that when judging the creativity of an application for a patent for invention, it is usually necessary to consider whether the combined technical features support each other in function, the difficulty of combination, the enlightenment of combination in the existing technology and the technical effect after combination. If the claimed invention only combines or connects some known products or methods, each product or method works in its normal way, and the total technical effect is the sum of the effects of each combined part, and there is no functional interaction between the combined technical features, but only a simple superposition, then the combined invention is not creative. If the combined technical features support each other in function and realize new technical effects; Or the technical effect of the combination is better than the comprehensive effect of each technical feature, the combination has outstanding substantive characteristics and remarkable progress, and the invention is creative. Whether each individual technical feature of a combined invention is completely known or partially known does not affect the evaluation of invention creativity.
The provisions of the above-mentioned patent examination guidelines are also useful for the creative evaluation of utility models, that is, to judge whether technical features are simply superimposed, the most fundamental thing is to consider whether there is correlation between technical features and whether there is mutual support in function.
Case deduction
A utility model patent relates to "single magnet bone conduction earphone device", and its independent claim is as follows: "1. A single magnet bone conduction earphone device comprises a vibration system consisting of a vibration plate and a vibration plate; The vibration transmission plate comprises a ring body and a plurality of pillar parts arranged between the ring body and the center thereof; The voice coil is fixedly arranged on the vibrating plate; The vibration transmission sheet is arranged as a first annular body and at least two first pillars which converge towards the center in the first annular body; The vibrating plate is arranged as a second annular body, and at least two second pillars converging towards the center in the second annular body; The vibration transmission plate and the vibration plate are fixed together; The first annular body is fixed on the magnetic system; Characterized in that the magnetic system device comprises an outer magnetic conductive plate, a magnet is arranged on the outer magnetic conductive plate, an inner magnetic conductive plate is arranged on the magnet, and a gap exists between the inner magnetic conductive plate and the outer magnetic conductive plate; The voice coil is arranged in the gap; A washer is also arranged on the ring body of the vibration transmission plate, and the other side of the washer is supported on the edge of the outer magnetic conduction plate; The outer magnetic plate is provided with a concave part, and the magnet is arranged in the concave part; The edges of the inner magnetic conductive plate and the outer magnetic conductive plate are flush. "
The obligee claims that the patent involved is not creative compared with the combination of several existing technologies. Among them, the closest prior art comparison document 1 discloses most technical features of claim 1. The difference between claim 1 and comparison document 1 lies in that the magnetic system arrangement includes an outer magnetic conductive plate, magnets are arranged on the outer magnetic conductive plate, a gap is formed between the inner magnetic conductive plate and the outer magnetic conductive plate, and a voice coil is arranged in the gap; The outer magnetic plate is provided with a concave part, and the magnet is arranged in the concave part; The other side of the washer is supported on the edge of the outer magnetic conduction plate; The edge of that inner magnetic conduction plate and the out magnetic conduction plate are flush. The technical problems to be solved in determining the patents involved based on the above distinguishing features are: how to set up a single magnet structure.
The applicant claims that the inner and outer magnetic conductive plates, the groove for accommodating magnets, the gap for accommodating voice coils, the gasket supported on the edge of the outer magnetic conductive plate and the flush arrangement of the edges of the inner and outer magnetic conductive plates have been disclosed by several other existing technologies respectively, so compared with the comparison document 1 and the combination of the above other existing technologies, the patent involved is not creative.
If we observe the above distinguishing features separately, the flush arrangement of the inner and outer magnetic conductive plates, the groove for accommodating the magnet, the gap for accommodating the voice coil, the gasket and the edges of the inner and outer magnetic conductive plates has been disclosed by many other prior arts. However, judging from the overall technical scheme of the patent involved and the closest prior art comparison document 1, the patent involved claims to protect a bone conduction earphone, which is a combination of a vibrating system consisting of a vibrating plate and a vibrating plate and a magnetic system consisting of a single magnet, while the comparison document 1 discloses a combination of a vibrating system consisting of a vibrating plate and a vibrating plate and a magnetic system consisting of a double magnet structure. Essentially, the patent involved is an improvement to solve the problem of inconvenient assembly of the magnetic system with double magnet structure mentioned in the background technology. A bone conduction earphone with simplified structure and convenient assembly is obtained by connecting the magnetic system consisting of an integrated external magnetic conduction plate and a single magnet structure with the composite vibration system. The above-mentioned distinctive features together constitute the single magnet system of the patent involved. Firstly, the magnetic system of the patent consists of an outer magnetic conductive plate with a concave part, a magnet arranged on the concave part of the outer magnetic conductive plate and an inner magnetic conductive plate arranged on the magnet. Then, in order to assemble the magnetic system and the vibration system, a gasket is arranged at the edge of the outer magnetic conductive plate, and the gap is raised due to the gasket, so that the voice coil can be accommodated, and the inner and outer magnetic conductive plates can be arranged flush. Therefore, the above distinguishing features support and cooperate with each other to form the single magnet system of this patent. Because the distinctive features of the above-mentioned patents involved constitute a single magnet system of the patents involved, the technical features in the technical scheme are mutually supportive and interrelated in structure and function, rather than simple patchwork or simple superposition of the prior art. At this time, it should be considered as a whole technology with logical relationship, and multiple technical schemes disclosed in the prior art cannot be superimposed and combined to determine that the patent right of the utility model is not creative.
From the above analysis, it can be concluded that whether utility model patents are simply superimposed depends on whether there is correlation between technical features, whether there is mutual support between the functional effects of technical features, especially considering the improvement compared with the existing technology and the correlation between technical features. If the technical features that make up a technical scheme are interrelated and support each other to complete a certain function, then the technical scheme is not a simple superposition, and it is not suitable to use multiple existing technologies to deny its creativity. (Zhu Shuo, Patent Reexamination Board, State Intellectual Property Office)