-
-
Services
-
-
14
2026-03
One Case a Day | China: Determining the Closest Prior Art - The Ultimate Essence of the Inventive Concept - Invalidation Decision No. 29061 (2016)
Case Introduction
In the past two days, we shared two cases focusing on the determination of the closest prior art, involving the roles played by the technical field and the technical problem. Today's shared case concerns the ultimate essence of determining the closest prior art—the inventive concept. A comprehensive consideration should be given to the technical field to which the corresponding technical solution belongs, the technical problem it solves, and the technical effect it achieves. The closest prior art should be selected based on the inventive concept. This case is also one of the few cases where the conclusion of inventive step evaluation was changed by overturning the closest prior art, making it worthy of attention.
Case Information
Application Number: 2015200377830
Title of Invention: Lifting Arm for Clothes Drying Rack
Request Date: November 17, 2015
Case Number: 5W109343
Decision Number: No. 29061
Decision Date: May 11, 2016
Key Points of the Decision
The closest prior art is the starting point from which the invention improves upon the existing technology. In inventive step examination, the closest prior art should be selected based on the inventive concept, with comprehensive consideration given to the technical field to which the corresponding technical solution belongs, the technical problem it solves, and the technical effect it achieves. If a technical solution in the prior art cannot serve as the starting point for the invention's improvement upon the existing technology, and consequently, a person skilled in the art would have no motivation to combine it with other prior art, then inventive step cannot be evaluated based on that technical solution in the prior art.
Important Information of the Case
The involved patent protects a lifting arm for a clothes drying rack. To solve the problems in the prior art of rusting due to exposed steel wire ropes and the inability to apply oil for lubrication and rust prevention to avoid contaminating clothes, it uses multiple sequentially nested and relatively slidable hollow tube bodies as the lifting arm for the drying rack. This achieves the purpose of applying lubricating oil to the steel wire rope embedded inside these hollow tube bodies, ensuring smooth operation without contaminating clothes, thereby extending the service life of the drying rack and improving cleanliness.
The requester cited Evidence 3 as the closest prior art to evaluate inventive step. Evidence 3 discloses a telescopic movable clothes drying rack where the crossbar is composed of inner and outer tubes nested together. The crossbar can telescope, achieving the purpose of drying more clothes when in use while occupying less space when stored.
Collegial Panel's Viewpoint
The collegial panel held that the closest prior art should be selected based on the inventive concept, with comprehensive consideration given to the technical field to which the corresponding technical solution belongs, the technical problem it solves, and the technical effect it achieves. Considering the differences between the involved patent and Evidence 3 in technical field, technical problem, and technical effect, the involved patent and Evidence 3 essentially belong to completely different inventive concepts.
When aiming to solve the problem in traditional racks where steel wire ropes cannot be lubricated, a person skilled in the art would not use the crossbar on the rack body in Evidence 3 as a starting point for improvement. Even if Evidence 3 were noticed, since its purpose is to solve the problem of traditional drying racks occupying large space when stored, the technical problem of steel wire ropes not being able to be lubricated, which the involved patent aims to solve, cannot be deduced by a person skilled in the art from Evidence 3. Consequently, a person skilled in the art cannot use Evidence 3 as a starting point for simulation, restoration, and further improvement. Therefore, Evidence 3 cannot serve as the starting point for judging whether the lifting arm for the drying rack protected by the involved patent possesses inventive step. Ultimately, the collegial panel found this invalidation ground unestablished.
undefined
Contact Us
No. 93, Ganjiang West Rd., Suzhou, 215002, P.R.C.
Business Area
Follow Us
