:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:非顯而易知之非顯而易知性--美國最高法院KSR案判決評析
書刊名:興大法學
作者:胡心蘭 引用關係
作者(外文):Hu, Hsin-lan
出版日期:2008
卷期:4
頁次:頁193-238
主題關鍵詞:可專利性非顯而易知性TSM測試專利審查Teleflex v. KSRPatentabilityNon-obviousnessTSM testGraham standard
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(7) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:5
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:105
期刊論文
1.Eisenberg, Rebecca S.(2007)。Commentary, The Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit: Visitation and Custody of Patent Law。Michigan Law Review First Impressions,106,28-33。  new window
2.Duff, John F.(2007)。KSR v. Teleflex: Predictable Reform of Patent Substance and Procedure in the Judiciary。Michigan Law Review First Impressions,106,34-38。  new window
3.Dabney, James W.(2007)。KSR: It was not a Ghosts。Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal,24(1),131-166。  new window
4.Lee, Justin(2008)。How KSR Broadens (Without Lowering) the Evidentiary Standard of Nonobviousness。Berkeley Technology Law Journal,23(1),15-46。  new window
5.USPTO(20071010)。Examination Guidelines for Determining Obviousness Under 35 U.S.C. 103 in View of the Supreme Court Decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.。Federal Register,72(195)。  new window
其他
1.(20080508)。Telefex v. KSR,http://www.wretch.cc/blog/shermanmt/18512601, 2008/08/28。  new window
2.(2008)。專利法規資訊,http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/NodeTree.aspx?path=43, 2008/09/11。  new window
3.楊仲榮(2008)。重新定義非顯而易知--專利要件再省思,http://www.ipnavigator.com.tw/, 2008/09/03。  延伸查詢new window
4.USPTO(20070503)。Supreme Court Decision on KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,http://pub.bnaxom/ptcj/PTOMay3memo.pdf, 2008/09/08。  new window
5.Department of Justice。Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae,http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2005/2pet/6invit/2004-1350.pet.ami.inv.pdf, 2008/08/28。  new window
6.Duffy, John F.(20050406)。KSR's Petition for Writ of Certiorari,http://patentlaw.typepad.eom/patent/4_2D06_2D05Certpetition_formatted.pdf, 2008/08/28。  new window
7.Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief of Cisco Systems Inc.。Microsoft Corp., Hallmark Cards, Incorporated, V.F. Corporation, and Fortune Brands Inc., as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner,http://patentlaw.typepad.com/KSR%20MicrosoftCisco_Amicus.pdf, 2008/08/28。  new window
8.Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief and Brief of Twenty-Four Intellectual Property Law Professors as Amicus Curiae in Support of Peti-tioner,http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/ksramicus.pdf, 2008/08/28。  new window
9.Federal Trade Commission(2003)。To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy,http://www.ftc.gov/os/2003/10/innovationrptsummary.pdf, 2008/08/28。  new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top