半因果关系如何启发专利权利要求书的起草

IF 0.4 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property Pub Date : 2022-01-04 DOI:10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03
Mo Abolkheiro
{"title":"半因果关系如何启发专利权利要求书的起草","authors":"Mo Abolkheiro","doi":"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The author’s 2019 article ‘If You Wish to Invent Then Follow the Half-Causation Method’ presented ‘Half-Causation’, which is a philosophical model for the systemization of the invention process. It consists of five phases of reasoning, each terminating with taking a ‘logical branch’. This paper has two objectives. The first (and preliminary) objective is to introduce a readership in patent practices (and theory) to Half-Causation. The second (and primary) objective is to highlight how Half-Causation can be practically useful to patent practitioners (and perhaps ultimately theorists), specifically in terms of enlightening the drafting of patent claims. In order to do this effectively, the reader is presented with a case which they can engage with to see for themselves how Half-Causation can help, step by step. The presented case was the subject of the USPTO’s 2019 patent drafting competition. It consists of rather convoluted instructions received from an ‘imaginary’ client about their ‘imaginary’ invention. The case is an excellent opportunity to illustrate how Half-Causation as a philosophical model can be practically useful. Two Half-Causation tools are implemented.\n\nThe first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention\n\nOn the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue.\n\nBesides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.","PeriodicalId":42155,"journal":{"name":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How Half-Causation can enlighten the drafting of patent claims\",\"authors\":\"Mo Abolkheiro\",\"doi\":\"10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The author’s 2019 article ‘If You Wish to Invent Then Follow the Half-Causation Method’ presented ‘Half-Causation’, which is a philosophical model for the systemization of the invention process. It consists of five phases of reasoning, each terminating with taking a ‘logical branch’. This paper has two objectives. The first (and preliminary) objective is to introduce a readership in patent practices (and theory) to Half-Causation. The second (and primary) objective is to highlight how Half-Causation can be practically useful to patent practitioners (and perhaps ultimately theorists), specifically in terms of enlightening the drafting of patent claims. In order to do this effectively, the reader is presented with a case which they can engage with to see for themselves how Half-Causation can help, step by step. The presented case was the subject of the USPTO’s 2019 patent drafting competition. It consists of rather convoluted instructions received from an ‘imaginary’ client about their ‘imaginary’ invention. The case is an excellent opportunity to illustrate how Half-Causation as a philosophical model can be practically useful. Two Half-Causation tools are implemented.\\n\\nThe first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention\\n\\nOn the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue.\\n\\nBesides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42155,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4337/qmjip.2021.04.03","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

作者2019年的文章《如果你想发明,那么就遵循半因果法》提出了“半因果”,这是发明过程系统化的哲学模型。它由五个推理阶段组成,每个阶段都以“逻辑分支”结束。本文有两个目的。第一个(也是初步的)目标是向读者介绍专利实践(和理论)中的半因果关系。第二个(也是主要的)目标是强调半因果关系如何对专利从业者(也许最终是理论家)实际有用,特别是在启发专利权利要求的起草方面。为了有效地做到这一点,读者可以一步一步地了解半因果关系是如何帮助他们的。本案是美国专利商标局2019年专利起草竞赛的主题。它由一个“假想”客户收到的关于他们“假想”发明的相当复杂的指令组成。这个案例是一个很好的机会来说明半因果关系作为一个哲学模型是如何在实践中有用的。实施了两个半因果关系工具。第一种是半因果分支,它允许发明空间的逻辑映射,想象中的发明位于其中。实施这一工具揭示了附近的两项替代发明,如果将其排除在所寻求的专利保护之外,任何最终授予的专利都将变得毫无价值。之后,半因果封装通过允许封装原始想象的发明,加上附近的两个替代发明,以提供发明的至关重要的统一性,从而拯救了局面。一方面,专利代理人不应该在成为共同发明人的程度上为其客户的发明概念做出贡献。另一方面,科学家和工程师不应该花那么多时间和精力来学习复杂的专利法,而应该成为专利代理人。可以说,每个人都应该以在自己的学科中脱颖而出为目标。然而,结构化的对话应该对每一个以及整个专利过程都有很大帮助。有人提出,具有逻辑结构的半因果关系可以为这种对话提供基础。除了针对专利实践和理论的读者,本文还应该引起多个读者的兴趣,例如工程设计、医学发现和技术哲学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How Half-Causation can enlighten the drafting of patent claims
The author’s 2019 article ‘If You Wish to Invent Then Follow the Half-Causation Method’ presented ‘Half-Causation’, which is a philosophical model for the systemization of the invention process. It consists of five phases of reasoning, each terminating with taking a ‘logical branch’. This paper has two objectives. The first (and preliminary) objective is to introduce a readership in patent practices (and theory) to Half-Causation. The second (and primary) objective is to highlight how Half-Causation can be practically useful to patent practitioners (and perhaps ultimately theorists), specifically in terms of enlightening the drafting of patent claims. In order to do this effectively, the reader is presented with a case which they can engage with to see for themselves how Half-Causation can help, step by step. The presented case was the subject of the USPTO’s 2019 patent drafting competition. It consists of rather convoluted instructions received from an ‘imaginary’ client about their ‘imaginary’ invention. The case is an excellent opportunity to illustrate how Half-Causation as a philosophical model can be practically useful. Two Half-Causation tools are implemented. The first is Half-Causation Branching, which allows the logical mapping of the inventing space, within which the imaginary invention is located. Implementing this tool reveals two alternative nearby inventions, which if left out of the sought patent protection would render any eventually granted patent practically worthless. Following that, Half-Causation Encapsulation comes to the rescue by allowing the encapsulation of the original imaginary invention, plus the two alternative nearby ones, all in a manner that provides the all-important unity of invention On the one hand, patent agents are not supposed to contribute to their client’s inventive concept to the extent that they become co-inventors. On the other hand, scientists and engineers are not supposed to dedicate so much time and effort to learning about complex patent laws as to become patent agents. Arguably, each should aim to excel in their discipline. However, a structured dialogue should be considerably helpful to each and to the patent process as a whole. It is proposed that Half-Causation, with its logical structure, can provide a basis for such a dialogue. Besides targeting a readership in patent practices and theory, this paper should be of interest to multiple readerships, for example in engineering design, medical discovery and philosophy of technology.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Pharmaceutical corporate power, traditional medical knowledge, and intellectual property governance in China Book review: Karine E Peschard, Seed Activism: Patent Politics and Litigation in the Global South (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 2022) 208 pp. Judicial and legislative approaches to employee patent rights in France Page against the machine: the death of the author and the rise of the producer? The universe identification and sampling design of consumer surveys in trade mark lawsuits
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1