Indonesian Group Answers to Questionnaire

Transcription

1 September 10, 2012 Indonesian Group Answers to Questionnaire By Indonesian Group members A. Evaluation of Inventive-step/Non-obviousness for Hypothetical Case: Part 1. Basis for accessing the presence of an inventive step 1. Law Provisions Indonesian Patent Law No. 14 of 2001 Art 2 par (3) and par (4) Standard for inventive step/non-obviousness in our jurisdiction is based on the provisions stipulated in Article 2 par 3-4 of Indonesian Patent Law No. 14/2001. An Invention shall be considered to involve an inventive step if said Invention does not constitute something that is obvious to a person skilled in the art. The standard of evaluation of whether or not an Invention constitutes something that is obvious must be made taking into account the state of the art at the time the Application is filed or which has existed at the time the first Application was filed, in case the Application is filed on the basis of a Priority Right. In summary the standard for non-obviousness is that it involves the skill of the person skilled in the art, and the state of the art at the time the application is filed. 2. The important element to make an assessment The test for inventive step in our jurisdiction is the "problem-solution approach" in order to decide whether an invention involves an inventive step. The approach consists in: 1. identifying the closest/most relevant prior arts; which disclose the effect of technical feature, the objective or the use of it which is the most similar with the claimed invention, or has the largest number of common technical features with the invention and able to perform the functions of the invention. 2. disclosing the difference between/among the prior art(s) and invention, and the subject matter of the claimed invention. Determining the objective technical problem from the distinguishing features, in the view of the most relevant prior arts, the technical problem which the claimed invention addresses and successfully solves; and 3. examining whether or not the claimed solution to the objective technical problem is obvious for the skilled person in view of the state of the art in general. If the skilled person would have been prompted to modify or to adapt the prior art in such a way 1

2 as to arrive at something falling within the terms of the claims, then the invention does not involve an inventive step. 3. Examination Guidelines There is no examination guideline from the Indonesian Patent Office. In common practice, to compare prior art and the basic test the examiner will refer to the WIPO and EPO. 4. Court Decision N/A Indonesian courts usually decide the case of patents related to novelty to determine the validity of the Patent. Part 2. Answer to the Hypothetical Case (1) Claims of the hypothetical present application: [Claim 1] A fire protection seal (1) comprising a sealing element (3) of intumescent material for sealing a gap, characterized in that the seal comprises an electrical heating means (2) arranged to heat the intumescent material to seal the gap. Answer for Claim 1 - Inventive-step: No. 1. Present invention (1) Claimed Invention A fire protection seal (1) comprising a sealing element (3) of intumescent material for sealing a gap, characterised in that the seal comprises an electrical heating means (2) arranged to heat the intumescent material to seal the gap. (2) Construction of wording - A fire protection seal is seals that used to prevent the spread of smoke or gases in the case of a fire. - Intumescent material is material undergoes a chemical change when exposed to heat or flames, becoming viscous then forming expanding bubbles that harden into a dense, heat insulating multi-cellular char. (3) Problem to be solved described in the specification - Preventing smoke or gases from passing through the gap in the case of fire. - Avoiding the lack that intumescent material is only activated after a fire has heated the intumescent material above its activation temperature (D1). 2

3 2. Description the invention in D1 (1) Invention of D1 A fire protection seal that made from an intumescent material for a doorframe. To seal the gap at the doorframe in the event of a fire, so that dangerous gases and smoke not passing through. 3. Description the invention in D2 (1) Invention of D2 Frames with multiple fixing points for doors and windows that comprise an intumescent material and a resistive heating wire embedded therein - Frame can be quickly installed by a single fitter. - The wire heats the intumescent material, causing it to transform into foam. 4. Reasoning: The invention of claim 1 "Hypothetical case" regarding fire protection seal, for sealing element it is anticipated by D1 and D2 are also made of intumescent material. Furthermore, the electrical heating means to regulate the heating of the intumescent material, possibility anticipated by the document D2, where it said intumescent material D2 is activated via the power adapter. Answer for Claim 2 - Inventive-step: Yes. 1. Present Invention (1) Claimed invention A fire protection system (7) having a control unit (9), at least one fire detector (8) and at least one fire protection seal (1) according to claim 1 that is activated by said control unit (9) in response to a signal from said fire detector (8). 2. Description in D1 3. Description in D2 3

4 4. Reasoning The invention of claim 2 "Hypothetical case" has the novelty associated with the fire protection system that does not exist in D1 and D2. The fire protection system of the present invention has a control unit, at least one fire detector in addition to the fire protection seal. the seal is activated by the control unit in response to a signal from said fire detector. On the other hand, the invention of D1 merely states a fire protection seal comprising intumescent material and not states the existence of any control unit with fire detector. Furthermore, D2 just states regarding the frame of door and window with the multiple fixing points. B. Additional General Questions concerning Evaluation of Inventive-step/Nonobviousness in your country or region: a. Which of the following does your country or region's Patent Office belong to when examining inventive-step/non-obviousness?.. ( ) ( i ) i) My country or region's Patent Office examines the inventive-step/non-obviousness of an invention before granting a patent (If so, please answer question c. below.) ii) My country or region's Patent Office fully recognizes the results of examination of inventive-step/non-obviousness of an invention by another country s Patent Office. (If so, please answer question b. below.) iii) Both of i) and ii) (If so, please answer questions b. and c.) iv) My country or region's Patent Office does not examine inventive-step/nonobviousness (If so, you may answer to the remaining questions only when appropriate). b. If your country or region's Patent Office recognizes the inventive-step/non-obviousness examination results of another country s patent office, please list the names of the countries for which your country s Patent Office recognizes the examination results. PRC, Japan, Korea, USA, Europe and Australia c. If your country or region's Patent Office examines the inventive-step/non-obviousness of an invention, are there applicable laws/rules/examination guidelines on which the examination is based? - Provide the relevant parts and the name of the applicable laws/regulations/examination guidelines 4

5 Indonesia Patent Law Art. 2 par (2) and (3) Art. 2 (2) An Invention shall be considered to involve an inventive step if said Invention does not constitute something that is obvious to a person skilled in the art. (3) The evaluation of whether or not an Invention constitutes something that is obvious must be made taking into account the state of the art at the time the Application is filed or which has existed at the time the first Application was filed, in case the Application is filed on the basis of a Priority Right. d) What is the purpose or intent (such as technical progress) of the law/rules/examination guidelines that provide for inventive-step/non-obviousness examination? Is the purpose or intent specifically stated in the law/rules/examination guidelines? If so, please provide the specific part of the law/rules/examination guidelines. There is no official examination guideline that provide for inventive-step/nonobviousness examination. 5