One Case a Day | China: Division of Distinctive Technical Features - Invalidation Decision No. 28625 (2016)

Case Introduction
Late at night, it's time to study cases again.
Through the cases from the past few days, we have completed the first step of the three-step method for judging inventiveness: determining the closest prior art. Starting today, we will learn typical cases for the second step: the division of distinctive technical features and the determination of the actual technical problem solved. The second step is often overlooked, but in fact, it is the key to the entire reasoning process for inventiveness. In this step, the distinctive technical features compared to the closest prior art are first determined, then the technical effects brought about by these distinctive features are identified, and finally the actual problem solved is determined. Today's shared case involves the division of distinctive technical features.

Case Information

Application Number: 201420281672.X
Title of Invention: Three-Axis Voice Coil Motor with Five Coils Controlling Lens Tilt Motion
Request Date: September 8, 2015
Case Number: 5W108968
Decision Number: No. 28625
Decision Date: March 24, 2016

Key Points of the Decision
When determining the distinctive features between a claim and a comparative document, the technical solution of the claim should be considered as a whole, analyzing whether there are interrelationships between the various technical features, rather than mechanically and isolatedly comparing each feature individually with the comparative document. Similarly, when multiple distinctive features exist, whether there are technical interrelationships between them should also be analyzed—whether the technical problems they solve are independent or interrelated. If there are technical interrelationships between multiple features, they should be considered as a whole, and the technical problem to be solved by the claim based on these distinctive features should be comprehensively analyzed.

Important Information of the Case
The amended claims of the involved patent are as follows:

A three-axis voice coil motor with five coils controlling lens tilt motion, comprising:
a) a housing formed by a bottom cover (6) and a yoke (1),
b) a lens holder (7) disposed inside the housing, and four deflection coils evenly distributed around the periphery of said lens holder (7),
c) at least one spring piece (2) connecting the end of the lens holder and the end of the housing, characterized in that:
d) a focusing coil (5) is sleeved around one end of the periphery of said lens holder (7), and magnets interacting with said deflection coils and focusing coil (5) are provided on the inner wall of said yoke (1),
e) said deflection coils and focusing coil (5) control the lens holder (7) to deflect in at least three degrees of freedom;
f) said magnets are evenly provided as four pieces on the inner wall of said yoke (1), each piece of magnet being planar two-stage magnetized corresponding to the transverse centerline of the deflection coils.

The requester cited Evidence 1 as the closest prior art to evaluate inventiveness. Evidence 1 discloses a lens driving device, wherein the lens driving unit (42) includes a focusing part (20) having a lens part (21) (equivalent to the lens holder) and an AF voice coil motor (38), a magnetic plate (34), an anti-shake voice coil motor (39), suspension wires (31), and a base part (40); four anti-shake coils (36x, 36y) located outside the lower part of the lens part, an F spring (24), and a B spring (29) (equivalent to at least one spring piece); the AF magnet interacts with the focusing coil (23), allowing the focusing part (20) to move in the z-direction; the anti-shake magnets (37x, 37y) interact with the anti-shake coils (36x, 36y), allowing the focusing part (20) to move in the X-Y direction.

Views of the Parties
Regarding the identification of distinctive technical features between Claim 1 and Comparative Document 1:
The requester believed that the four anti-shake magnets (37x, 37y) in Comparative Document 1 were equivalent to the four magnets in Claim 1 of this patent; the anti-shake magnets (37x, 37y) were planar two-stage magnetized corresponding to the transverse centerline of the anti-shake coils; the anti-shake coils (36x, 36y) and the focusing coil (23) controlled the lens holder to deflect in at least three degrees of freedom; and the features of the spring piece were also disclosed by the F spring and B spring in Comparative Document 1. Therefore, only feature a) constituted a distinctive technical feature.
The patentee believed that Comparative Document 1 included not only four anti-shake magnets but also four AF magnets, not just four magnets; moreover, the AF magnets interacted with the focusing coil (23), and the anti-shake magnets (37x, 37y) interacted with the anti-shake coils (36x, 36y), whereas there were no magnets that simultaneously interacted with both the deflection coils and the focusing coil. Additionally, the lens holder of this patent deflects along the x-axis and y-axis, rather than translating as in Comparative Document 1. Therefore, the patentee believed that features a) through f) were all distinctive technical features.

Collegial Panel's Viewpoint
The collegial panel held that when determining the distinctive features between a claim and a comparative document, the technical solution of the claim should be considered as a whole, analyzing whether there are interrelationships between the various technical features, rather than mechanically and isolatedly comparing each feature individually with the comparative document.
First, features (b) and (c) both relate to the housing in feature (a), and since Comparative Document 1 does not disclose a housing, the setting relationships of the deflection coils and spring piece with the housing in features (b) and (c) also constitute distinctive features between Claim 1 and Comparative Document 1.
Second, features (d) and (f) are combined: each of the four magnets interacts with both the deflection coils and the focusing coil, meaning each magnet is planar two-stage magnetized corresponding to the transverse centerline of the deflection coils. In contrast, Comparative Document 1 has a total of eight magnets, with the AF magnets interacting with the focusing coil and the anti-shake magnets (37x, 37y) interacting with the anti-shake coils. There are no magnets that interact with both the focusing coil and the anti-shake coils, and the four AF magnets are also not planar two-stage magnetized corresponding to the transverse centerline of the deflection coils. Therefore, features (d) and (f) also constitute distinctive features between Claim 1 and Comparative Document 1.
Third, regarding feature (e), the movement of the lens part in Comparative Document 1 and Claim 1 is the same in the z-axis direction, but in the x-axis and y-axis directions, due to the anti-shake magnets and coils being arranged up and down along the z-axis direction in Comparative Document 1, according to the left-hand rule, when the coils are energized, they are subjected to a force from the magnets along the x-axis or y-axis direction, causing the coils to move along the x-axis or y-axis direction, thereby driving the lens holder to translate along the x-axis or y-axis direction. In this patent, the movement mode of the lens part is deflection along the x-axis and y-axis rather than translation, because the setting directions of the magnets and deflection coils are different from those in Comparative Document 1. Therefore, feature (e) also constitutes a distinctive feature between Claim 1 and Comparative Document 1.

In summary, features (a) through (f) all constitute distinctive features between Claim 1 and Comparative Document 1.

None

One Case a Day | China: Determination of the Protected Subject Matter for Utility Models Containing Computer Programs - Invalidation Decision No. 565175 (2023)

undefined