评价专利创造性时，应注意是否有将两篇文献进行结合的动机

在专利申请、复审、无效时，专利是否有创造性是遇到的最多的问题。

而评价专利是否具备创造性，往往需要将多篇对比文件相结合。但能不能结合，即本领域一般技术人员是否有将不同的对比文件进行结合的动机，也是争论的焦点。

（2022）最高法知行终316号判例，可以帮助我们学习是否有动机。

涉案专利申请名称为“一种克氏针折弯装置”（以下简称本申请）。该专利经复审后被国家知识产权局驳回。申请人提起诉讼，并最终上诉到最高人民法院。

本申请与对比文件1（以下简称D1）均是以同一专利技术为基础，他们想要解决的技术问题也相同。但本申请的技术创新点是 “the rotation plane of the contact is perpendicular to the head of the needle-nosed pliers, but parallel to the axis direction of the pliers’ rotating shaft”，即触头能够围绕尖嘴钳头部的四周旋转。而D1的结构要点是 “the rotation plane of the shift block is parallel to the axis direction of the fixed shaft, but perpendicular to the axis direction of the pliers’ rotating shaft”，即拨块只能在固定轴的一侧旋转。

最高院认为，基于D1给出的技术教导，本领域技术人员不会想到将固定轴和折弯底座替换成尖嘴钳、利用尖嘴钳夹持克氏针。因此，本领域技术人员没有将D1改进成本申请的动机。同时，对比文件2中公开的 perpendicular to the pliers’ rotating shaft, and the contact rotates around the pliers’ rotating shaft, that is, the rotation plane of the contact is perpendicular to the pliers’ rotating shaft and parallel to the central axis in the length direction of the needle-nosed pliers, and the contact does not rotate around the head of the needle-nosed pliers. Therefore, Comparative Document 2 does not provide the technical inspiration of “replacing the bending base with needle-nosed pliers, rotating the contacts perpendicular to the heads of the needle-nosed pliers, and using needle-nosed pliers to clamp the Kirschner wire.”

最高人民法院认为，在判断专利是否具有创造性时，应该判定 “a person skilled in the art has the motivation to improve the background technology and the motivation to combine other comparative documents with the background technology”. If there is a large difference between the inventive concept of the invention and the inventive concept of the background technology, the person skilled in the art usually does not derive the technical solution of the invention by improving the background technology; if there are also large differences in the inventive concept of other comparative documents, the person skilled in the art usually finds it difficult to combine the two comparative documents. The so-called “inventive concept” refers to the technical improvement idea proposed by the inventor to solve the technical problems existing in the background technology. This idea and the technical improvement path determine the composition of the final technical solution.

本案经最高人民法院审理后判决，撤销一审法院原判和原驳回决定。

原文链接：评价专利创造性时，应注意是否有将两篇文献进行结合的动机
关于我们：上海布路知识产权代理事务所（特殊普通合伙）