CN104520880A - An innovation expert system, IES, and its PTR data structure, PTR-DS - Google Patents

Abstract

The claimed Innovation Expert System, IES, and for a given innovation/invention the claimed Data Structure DS - structurally being the same for any innovation/invention - meet two kinds of functional requirements. They support: (I) determining all the innovation's/invention's technical/legal relations to given prior art information, (II) instantly recognizing and answering any reasonable query about any such relation alias fact. Functionality (I) enables generating/providing functionality (II) -jointly implemented by IES and DS, also usable by other expert systems. DS results from screening the innovation for technical/legal informal fundamental facts, transforming them into technical/legal formal fundamental facts, these into technical/legal primary facts, these into technical/legal secondary semantic/creative/inventive and pragmatic facts, and these into argument chains being the final technical/ legal facts. All facts use the number and kinds of independent creative/inventive concepts alias thoughts needed for finding/qualifying the invention over prior art, as induced by HIGHEST COURTS of Germany and recently the US.

Description

Innovation expert system IES and PTR data structure PTR-DS thereof

I. the PTR-DS of claimed invention: IES and its bottom

Any innovation, also known as invention, implements inventive measure technically, and " technically " means " technology enforcement ", and this technology is not limited to " machine or conversion " ^{i), *), 4) and, 7)}, comprise by document document.0 open in the mode that can realize ⁵⁾new technology instruction TT.0, it is non-obvious for relevant common skill and prior art, and the latter is represented by the list of references set RS of the document document.i disclosing TT.i (1≤i≤I), and it is predicted potentially ^iII.2 tT.0.All document doc.i (i >=0) will be explained by relevant those of ordinary skill, for obtaining their TT.i from it.< innovation/TT.0, prior art RS> to be called as " PTR " (" tt.0 and rthe problem of S ").

Therefore innovating expert system IES is PTR expert system.Its actual functional capability needs met by it define: these two kinds functional comprising are supported in it carefully analyzes for any PTR

(I) obtain from it alltechnology and juristic fact, also known as the relation between TT.0 and given RS, given RS is given background respectively, such as given legal system (such as, in the U.S., 35 USC § § 112,102/103 and 101), and subsequently

(II) immediatelyutilize this analysis, distinguish and answer about any such relation anyreasonable enquiry.

The functional use subsystem of its classification (I), this subsystem comprises " PTR-PS " (=" PTR Resolving probiems device " ^{iII.1/3, IV, V} ), such as not the FSTP of a part for present patent application tests ¹⁾, in addition by " PTR-S " (=" PTR solution " that the execution of PTR-PS is paid ^iII.1 ) make it possible to generate PTR/TT.0 distinctive " PTR-DS " (=" PTR data structure " ^iV), itself then make IES can provide the functional of classification (II).The generation of IES and PTR-DS is subject of this patent application content.Consider that this mode of IES/PTR-DS is called as " FSTP technology ^iII.3 ".

That is: claimed IES (FSTP=" true selection and transform processor ") can use the also claimed PTR-DS of the PTR of any bottom paid by any PTR-S, provide the service of its type (II).Thus PTR-DS represents the document of the unofficial basic fact selection PTR for all technology and law, they are transformed into the formal basic fact of technology and law, these are transformed into the material fact (U.S. " Graham true ") of technology and law, and these are transformed into the secondary semanteme of technology and law/create/invention with the fact of practicality ^{4) a.-g.} , true " law " aspect is tested by FSTP not yet ¹⁾know.The fact of these technology and law is based on the Supreme Judicial Court, " creativeness/invention/practicality " that particularly the Supreme Judicial Court of the U.S. concludes is weighed, its identify relative to RS find/create/accreditation TT.0 needed for independently create/invention/practical viewpoint, i.e. the number of each design and classification ^{iII.3.2, 4) a..-g.} .The idea of this FSTP technology bottom ^*)new natural law can be modeled as ^iII.1 , it is by mathematics/cognitive FSTP Innovation Model ¹⁰⁾axiomatization.

II. the cognitive basis of claimed invention

Even the innovation created that is that many companies even success of society are using based on them or that sell.Tackle the rationality that innovation means detects for any subject content and utilizes some novel continually ^*), these rationality are unknown or were not understood (that is, belonging to metaphysics/senseless/virtual power theory) in the past and made life after this better, namely can use after their rationalization.Creation can be directly used in by this novel rationality of innovation implementation ^{4) g.(7)} , such as there is the specific sound alarm of the GUI supporting computer utility, or there is scalable invention ^iII.1 , the controller of such as combustion process, and occasional trade protection can be authorized by Patent Law in the latter case.

PTR-DS make IES can with in science accurately mode be supported in any subject fields and disclose, improve, assess, teach, prove and the rationality of protection and creation ^{*), 3), 4)}.Although establish " rationalization " innovation in a lot of fields, based on utilizing recent Supreme Judicial Court's case, they never benefit from the science support provided by FSTP technology when initial up to now.

From prior art, the historical growth (only obtaining certain science support after long times) of being drawn by their " rationalize innovation " is: from the architectural engineering technology of architecture evolution, the transportation technology manufactured from the vehicles, medical skill, financial technology, Trade technique etc. from medical practice.From their study and the experience passed on by this " innovative technology " newly how to accelerate, improve and/or assess any innovation right so at the very start.That is, unknown up to now, the rationalization " novelty " in all subject fields, namely " makes forward position return its tera incognita ", can modify for scientific and precise ^{1), *)}.This innovation science/technology newly self is the rationalization growth from Patent Law case, because of its by the Supreme Judicial Court by their respective bottoms based on the field of skill in protection and creation and developing.

For this innovation natural science emerged in large numbers ^*)the above historical analogism first quoted shown its rationalization process, namely building technology is developed, the remarkable expansion of the term/concept of only depositing before can being and reinforcement: although building technology is based on the mathematics/physical model of (will analyze) buildings, and this model is based on Differential Systems, but the architect designing this buildings does not get a real idea of these differential equations, but only understand them and must do now.Along with emerging in large numbers of innovative technology, when utilizing FSTP technical Analysis TT.0, there is not being inconsistent of this deep layer.Here term/the concept of TT.0 inventor and FSTP technology is very close each other.

In explanation ^iIIthe innovation science of emerging in large numbers, namely before each FSTP technology, by paragraph subsequently ^*)fSTP Innovation Model about bottom is provided ¹⁰⁾some more background informations.

Although the unclear time occurred, arbitrary above technology is by the specific pure visual model of the bottom of its field particular real-world ^*)evolution, thus the evolution intuitively of any such mental model, describe/distinguish all kinds of problem that he is tackling and their solution such as to support person skilled.Not only technology, and mathematics, natural science, the administration of justice, sociology, economics, physical culture, welfare etc. are also together with their technical ability and their specific and model evolution intuitively.

Relative with their variation, FSTP Innovation Model ¹⁰⁾general and by comprehensive axiomatization.Therefore its can exactly/uniquely/inerrably identify and namely for there is certain class same sex to rational any field/science, allow the single measure of its relative evolution of certain given prior art to describe at least one its fact/relation by means of predicate ⁴⁾: therefore when starting to search for from the RS of its prior art, FSTP model makes any PTR-PS, and such as FSTP test, can innovate/TT.0, mathematically determine to find each indispensable inventive measure of this innovation/TT.0 for it.Thus any PTR-PS is for this innovation/TT.0, determine lower limit >=0 of the creativeness/invention height about the relative the prior art implemented by its (this innovation/TT.0) particularly.

The conceptual foundation of FSTP model is pure mathematics model and axiom thereof ^{*), 10)}.That is: it is than physical model, such as mechanical model, optical model etc. more based on.Although their axiom, also known as law, depart from logic field and therefore need Physical Experiment to verify, FSTP model remains on mathematics/logic ^*)in field, only as any pure mathematics model, and therefore do not need such checking.But this means the accuracy of the term/concept needed for many potential IES users uncomfortable application FETP technology, even if they are familiar with wherein occurring ²⁾other science of Similar Problems and/or technology.Therefore unfortunately, the introduction of these term/concepts below and explanation ^iII.3.2 not insignificant.

Last comment contributes to the distinctive footnotes/endnotes understanding present patent application.Its introductory chapters and sections ^i.-III.summarize these key features of FSTP technology, and footnotes/endnotes ^{*), 2), 3)}from the philosophy/theory of knowledge/linguistics, ^4)-7)from the patent case of the Supreme Judicial Court and senior IT and ^8)-10)from standardization/mathematics/logic, provide background information.

III. to the patent case of PTR mathematical modeling and the recent Supreme Judicial Court

These chapters and sections III provide the determinant attribute of the mathematics innovation theory about future epistemological/" representation of knowledge (KR) " of mathematics basis, its patented technology is primary result also known as FSTP technology.It is conceived to the KR problem distinguishing innovation bottom, and namely it greatly ignores legal issue.Therefore, " patent business practitioner " can skip it, although it is convenient to grasp this innovation.

iII.1– PTR and solution thereof

Comprising PTR modeling will from the comment information item of its document " doc.i " ^{iII.1, IV., V.} informal and the formal description of the TT.i of the PTR obtained.If describing for relevant those of ordinary skill is (often only get rid of and use natural language ii) accurately, then it is " formal ".That is, it identifies

(a) X.i.n, n=1,2,3 ...., N, 0≤i≤I, as its TT.0, namely doc.i distinguishes N number of " element " and " peer element " of disclosed TT.i,

(b) x.i.n, n=1,2,3 ...., N, 0≤i≤I, as the FOL " predicate " of these X.i.n ^{5), 7)}, say exactly, i.e. all relevant predicates ^iII.3.2N6 , and

(c) C.k, k=1,2,3 ...., K, as having for defining N x.0.n ^iII.3.2 " design " of required value ^{5) b., 7) c,9) 1.} .

" PTR solution PTR-S ", also known as " PTR knowledge K (PTR) " ^iII.3.1 (from its o-/AD/BID " representation of knowledge KR " ^{iII.2/3/4, IV, V} abstract), comprise the item of information (a) to (h) of following title:

D () " list of references set RS ", i.e. the set of TT.i disclosed in doc.i, 0≤i≤I is the prior art of its TT.0 ^{5), 6), 7)}.

E () " technical foundation information is true " is the disclosure of all TT.i character in doc.i ^{5), 6), 7)}, 0≤i≤I.

F () " technical foundation is formally true " is more than utilizing xthe accurate description of the character of X .i.n ^{5), 6), 7)}.(g) " technology material fact ", all x.i.n, i>0 and x.0.n " expection/unexpected and non-conflict/conflict ANC " between ¹⁾relation (i.e. " the Graham technology true " of U.S., uses formal name here more accurately).

H () " the secondary fact of technology ", is determined by " PTR-PS " ^{iII.3.1, IV., V.} one of, be following i) to iii), but only consider ii here):

I) (closest classics) technology secondary " substantially " is true, as the direct result of its Graham fact.

Ii) (innovation) technology secondary " semantic/create " is true, true also known as " plcs ", right as following two components:

1.) the relative RS of TT.0 " creation/invention height, also known as plcs height, Q ^plcs" (plcs=Patent Law is accepted semantic).The linear module of plcs height is " separate point of view ⁴⁾": need at least Q ^plcsindividual such viewpoint finds TT.0 from RS ^iII.3.2.N1 .That is, there is not q<Q ^plcs, " expection combination AC ^iII.2 " and q " 1-CC is created in 1 design ", also known as " q-CC " ⁴⁾, there is " AC/mod (q-CC) antstT.0 " ^iII.3.2. .

2.) " Q ^plcsset of paths Q ^plcs-PS ", be all " Q ^plcs-AC gather " set, each Q ^plcs-AC set is the right set of all <x, y>, and x is Q ^plcs-AC, y are about this Q ^plcsthe Q of-AC ^plcs-CC ^{4) b., 6) a.} the Q of set ^plcs! One of individual element.

Iii.) technology secondary " practical " is true, also known as " pmgp " 4) true, right as following item:

1.) its TT.0 relatively its RS " practical height, also known as pmgp height, Q ^pmgp" (practicality that pmgp=patent monoply is authorized).The linear module of pmgp height is same as above, but AC/mod (q-CC) affects by pmgp extraly now ¹⁾, this affects q-CC potentially and therefore makes Q ^pmgpbecome < or>=Q ^plcs.Thus the PTR with " real highly creation " TT.0 will not affect by pmgp usually ^iII.3.2.N1 .

2.) " Q ^pmgpset of paths Q ^pmgp-PS ", be also the licensed Q of all path pmgp ^pmgp-PS class example (analogon) ^{1), 4) g.(5-9)} .

iII.2– FSTP concept can realize " design of invention is decomposed " that the Supreme Judicial Court concludes

FSTP/PTR Innovation Model ¹⁰⁾for obtaining its law solution PTR-S in senior IT mode from PTR ^iII.1 , based on the concept of the creation " separate point of view " of the Supreme Judicial Court, i.e. each conceptive equivalent " inventive concept " ^{iii), 4), iII.3.2} .In order to clearly define these new basic concepts, consistent with most countries patent system (" NPS ") is extra ^iII.1 fSTP concept is static by first tolerance ambiguity" modeling " (being abbreviated as " ≈ "), until the concept of " design " is clearly defined ^iII.3.2 .These FSTP concepts ( it is accurate only to become afterwards ^iII.3.2 ) be:

" expection combination AC " ≈ any N tuple ∈ ps+pa*, thus " ps+pa* ":: the set of the N number of N tuple of=(I+2) * *, any one in their n component is x.i.n (1≤i≤I) or some ∈ ps, and " AC ^ps": :=all N number of component ∈ ps,

" design is created " in " q-CC " ≈ AC ^{6) a.}the sequence of q 1-CC, q=0,1,2 ..., " 0-CC " is empty creation,

" Q ^plcs-AC " any AC of ≈: q ^plcs-AC/mod (Q ^plcs-CC) antstT.0, Q ^plcsit is minimum,

" plcs ^xxxheight Q ^plcs/xxx" 4 option iii below ≈) ^{4) c.} in one under Q ^{plcs iII.1} , it is indicated by " xxx "

" Q ^pmgp-AC " and " pmgp ^xxxheight Q ^pmgp/xxx" ≈ analogy ^iII.1 , ^v.1 , ^{fig. 6}, " Q-AC " ≈ ignores minimum limit.

For any AC and q-CC, q=0,1,2 ..., more than " AC/mod (q-CC) is to TT.0 " ^iII.1 expection relation is called:

If i) " AC/mod (q-CC) and (TT.0 orinvolve in this AC ⁶⁾any TT.i) Lothrus apterus ", then " Lothrus apterus ", q>=0.

Ii) if " by element/element one by one " ^{5) d., 6) c.} aC/mod (q-CC) antstT.0, then " reservation of element integrality ".

Iii) if i) and ii) be neither suitable for, then " freedom ", namely distinguish " formally " (default), " xxx " indicates 1 in 4 " expection options ".

For i): in the case of the Supreme Judicial Court, the TT.i conflicted with TT.0 is often got rid of by from any AC, because TT.i " always instructs " technician from given prior art RS ¹⁾obtain TT.0.

For ii): the case approval of all Supreme Judicial Courts: AC must not be .) if x.0.n with some equities x.i.n be some x.i.n _{φ .i}combination, 0≤i≤I, φ .i=1,2,3 ..., then from different TT.i " preferably " x.i.n _{φ .i}, expect for TT.0 x.0.n ^{5) d., 6) a., 6) c., 9} ), neither :) more than 3 doc.i of greatest combined.

For iii): check Q owing to pressing pmgp ^plcs/xxx-PS, the Q obtained ^pmgp/xxx< or=or >Q can be become ^plcs/xxx.

Its law solution PTR-S is obtained from PTR ^iII.1 science mode *) (only there is the method for this PTR-S of obtaining to ensure that with predictable patent decide consistent with the world of country, and therefore recently promoted by the Supreme Judicial Court/conclude, particularly in the U.S.) need the patent ruling understanding a side more fundamentally to need and potentiality and the opposing party senior IT virtual rating between interaction, to determine for the fact and claim/patent explains.In order to show this point, this interaction between this segmenting edge IT and patent case of the Supreme Judicial Court is in fact very abundant ^{9) 5.} , the discussion between the united states patent law expert that the major part of the following summary Supreme Judicial Court and court of appealing of federal touring district (CAFC) is adjudicated substantially and they encourage ⁴⁾.These Supreme Judicial Courts patent judgement form present patent application with innovation and decisive chapters and sections V the basis of writing and it is controlled.

In this discussion of the U.S. ^{4) e.-g.} in fact be very noticeable, because it represents in patent ruling towards its huge advance without controversial and predictability in the theory of knowledge, its semanteme and practicality are exceeded in scale to the detection of the Graham fact in generation nineteen sixty, even if its fact is determined to become ripe with claim interpretation, as the growth from patent case, become the basis of patented technology.

III.3 – is by design ^v)come K (PTR) modeling with compound design decomposition

Creating/development/analyze/protection/attack invention time and senior IT and IES functional in, with to posc personnel ^{iII.3.2 d1/N1, D2/N2, D4/N4} the mode that can realize generates PTR-DS.These chapters and sections iII.3provide KR, more generally, provide " senior IT ", namely two kinds innovation institute based on basis, particularly " design " and " by compound conceive resolve into independent design " basic concept.But these concepts also can use when not knowing this background of major part, mean that patent practitioner can skip these chapters and sections.

III.3.1 is when using about invention relative to its prior art ^iII.1 (non-) apparent property instruction, the Supreme Judicial Court ⁴⁾now clearly patent case time, PTR-DS by application from associated higher IT (system, Study on Semantic, term rewrite ^*), DL ^*), KR ^*)) and the basic means of mathematics, facilitate patent business.More accurately, PTR-DS is generated ^iV, namely provide the Integrated predict model that this process self basic is easily served based on two other senior mutual patent business IT, both this all not in the scope of present patent application.They are: PTR document mark (PTR-DMU) service, the PE2E service of such as U.S.Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) ^{iV., V.}, and the service of PTR Resolving probiems, such as FSTP testing service ¹⁾: for PTR,

The doc.i of PTR is alternatively transformed into the set (" label information " item) of " MUI " item by PTR-DMU service, and it comprises the technology of PTR ⁷⁾unofficially true with Fundamentals of Law, i>=0, and

The technology MUI defined so is alternatively transformed into the technical foundation formally fact, its technology material fact and the secondary fact of its technology of PTR by PTR-PS service ^iII.1 (make involved KR ^iII.3.2 transform to " AD-PTR " from " o-PTR ", transform to " BID-PTR " and temporarily transform to ^vi)).

Here " technology " concept taked now in the U.S. more than Europe ^vii).

Obtained this solution of PTR problem from " innovation rule " by any PTR-RS ^iII.1 , innovation rule is new " natural law " ^{4 ) a., d.} it is write: " by starting to retrieve at that time for finding the number instruction of TT.0 and indispensable separate point of view from RS, it is constant relative to all representations of knowledge of PTR to the creativeness/invention implemented by the non-usual innovation/TT.0 relative to certain prior art RS " ^iII.3.2 .Therefore it is the unarguable tolerance of TT.0 relative to the degree/quantity of the novelty of the prior art RS.

The Part I of this new natural law is concluded by the case of the Supreme Judicial Court, and it is supposed and repeatedly teaches (implicitly) ^{4) a.-g.} , this quantizes and approve the correct way being implemented " creativeness/invention indicates " by invention/innovation/TT.0 relative to its prior art RS.This new natural law is by transcendent/imagination ^*)superorganic/imaginary phenomenon founded, only as any physical law founded by metaphysics ^*).The axiomatization of this new natural law ¹⁰⁾by all clearly develop up to now about the TT.0 by PTR ^{4) b.} the guess of the creativeness/invention process implemented relative to its RS/thought of philosophy is converted into the mathematical result of these axioms.This meets the hypothesis about " natural special theory " of Kant ³⁾, be about the hypothesis of this Supreme Judicial Court for " the innovation rule " of creativeness/invention conclusion of TT.0 here: in creativeness/invention, " only can find so many real science, because there is the mathematics found ".The mathematics PTR-S found in PTR, also known as K (PTR), has many expressions that the design set that has for encoding to it defines ^d3/N3, i.e. KR (PTR).

In other words: always started the separate point of view determining to be implemented by K (PTR) off the record by the disclosure of the doc.i selecting PTR.About these viewpoints ²⁾become and accurately need by independently and the design of therefore usually decomposing ⁹⁾the mathematical modeling of PTR.Presenting of this PTR achieves

Prove the existence that this innovation is restrained, i.e. the above unchangeability relative to its KR all of any PTR ^iII.3.2 , and

Clearly represent, separated from one another and thus independently of one another analyze with any PTR ^{9) 5.} each the practical aspect be associated,

Which demonstrate by means of " independent design is resolved in compound design " ^iII.3.2 the validity of this mathematical modeling.The concept of the compound design of even now is uncertain, but the concept of wherein independent design normally can mathematical definition and therefore make it possible to by determining without the dispute fact to solve PTR at mathematics book, can determine based on this nothing fact of disputing at the patent case of following law court.

This new innovation natural law will be sought development for the predicate/term rewriting finding PTR-PS ^{*) [BN]}algorithm, such as, based on the algorithm of " symbol differentiation "." design rewrites " FSTP test ¹⁾more based on " sign integration " ^{6) a.} and current seemingly this new natural law the most intuitively ^{4), 6), IV., V.}this application.

Perform PTR-PS always mean first original four loose on the whole/amorphous PTR is transformed into by independently conceive and relation between them (often by predicate ^{9) 1.-2.} represent) the only finite aggregate of clear true problem identificatioin that describes.The finite aggregate of this design/relation/predicate can realize proving chain ^{iII.3.2, V} . finite aggregate, it comprises the complete answer for the arbitrary problem in only limited many significant problem, be used to indicate/decide such as TT.0 relative to its prior art RS creation/invention height, and/or its claim be non-that take the lead and/or its scope is good definition, etc. ^{9) 5.} .But although finiteness of these set, these answers can not by delivered in real-time: obtaining them is now highly mutual and the driving that is retrieved, namely consuming time, must not immediately realize.But due to this finiteness, the generation that can perform complete PTR-DS in advance (to be invented by present patent application by application and is disclosed ^v.method), make PTR-DS can: automatically and immediately whether reasonable by being characterized as about the technology of PTR and any inquiry of juristic fact, and the complete answer transferred for this inquiry and be presented on IV., V. in the expression of user's request.

These PTR-DS abilities make its application system any using it; the i.e. true decision support system of multiple robotization; such as the IES of one of claimed invention; or be about to occur (between the evolving state of the huge system such as branches of economy of country) " transition control ", or " automatic marketing network " (is used in particular for the innovations such as the green/energy/health/medical treatment/gene/nanometer of new classification ¹⁾), these services can be sent.

Before the concept introducing compound and independent design, and understand their ftn of reply for being convenient to ^4)-7), introduce the example of the potential complexity about them, particularly in standardization ^viii)when.

III.3.2 PTR-DS is the coding of K (PTR), " design that it uses ^{4) d.} , o-C} ∪ AD-C} ∪ BID-C} " ^{d3/ n3} set, the subclass of this three class C is " { cr-C} " and " { de-C} ", and " creation/invention " C is to " plcs " true modeling ^iII.1 , namely " determinate " C is respectively to " disclosure " true modeling.(unit) that de-C defines cr-C is semantic ^{4 ) g. (6-8), 9) 1., V} .

C is defined by its " universe U (C) ": " the value set vC " that be reduced to C, is that C " territory dC " is to the unique mapping M on vC exactly; Such U (C)=and (x, y) | x ∈ dCy=M (x) ∈ vC}.C can be regarded as " class " of height parameter, and allow " object " with actual parameter value, these objects are also referred to as design.

If vC={T, F}, then C is called as " binary ".For binary C ' and C ", if: " truth set TS (C ') ": :=x ∈ dC ' | M (x)=T} and " C ' expect C " ", namely " C ' antsc ", condition is TS (C ')=TS (C ").The concept of being somebody's turn to do " design " makes it possible to all character of all elements describing and/or analyze claimed invention exactly ⁹⁾, needed for patent ruling.

The prefix " o/AD/BID " of design identifies " representation of knowledge KR " of the wherein K (PTR) of given any C ^iII.1 , " original o " or " disclosed in the ∧ of polymerization AD " or " the ∧ independently BID disclosed in ∧ of binary " ^{5 i), 9} ) ^1. ." o " prefix identification of C is wherein open ^{5) b.}the document document.i of C ^{d3, IV., V.} , " tag entry MUIm, the i " of the information in 0≤i≤I, 1≤m≤M ⁱ.All these are with follow-up ^d1-D5 term/concept is customized for providing the patent case to the Supreme Judicial Court ⁴⁾in rationality, and only this rationality is carried out to the basis of mathematical modeling.

O-C/AD-C only needs to be determined by " optionally " at first ^{5) b., 7) c.} , subsequently to first semantic modeling; They are called as " meta-C " like this.BID-C starts accurate semantic modeling ^{n3, n5i) .), 9) 1.- 2} ..Any one in 3 KR of K (PTR) gathers modelings by following 3 disjoint C: as by classroom/technical ability textbook ¹⁾with " { posc-C} " model " relevant common skill/creative posc " (posc is often abbreviated as " ps ") of common creativeness definition, " { pa-C} " model " prior art pa " defined by doc.i, i>0 and " { cr-C} " model " invention/TT.0 " of being defined by the doc.0 relative to ps ^{iII.1, N5i), 9) 1.} ." o-cr-c} ∪ AD-cr-C} ∪ BID-cr-C} " be the total collection of " invention/creationary C " implemented relative to the TT.0 of ps+pa in o-/AD-/BID-KR ^{4) a.} .In any KR, AC ^iII.1 ∈ ps+pa* is passable antsome or all of such cr-C.Only determine " compound " AD-cr-C and their original o-cr-C ^d3/N3 usually be easy to mislead ^{4) g.(5-8), 7) c.} .That is, usually need BID-cr-C, they " comprise " ^{n5 i), 9) 1.} : therefore the legal requiremnt of the Supreme Judicial Court can be satisfied, and for KR technological standpoint, this is indispensable ^{4) g.(5-8)} .

FSTP technology is used for the separate point of view finally determining to be implemented by the TT.0 of PTR ^d1-2 number and classification ^{4) g.(5-8} ), namely to these viewpoints ^n1. the number of the BID-cr-C of modeling and classification.Any cr-C is created by this viewpoint in intelligence, and they are 1. years old) by changing/remove/add the U (C) that ∈ vC or dC revises its C ∈ " ps+pa ", or 2.) with at ps+pa ^{5) d., 6) c.} in combine these C ∈ ps+pa in the mode of previously unknown non-trivial, or 3.) be defined in BID-cr-C completely unknown in the ps+pa of PTR.Do not have other modes that this BID-cr-C can be made reasonably to come into existence ^{*), d1/2, n1/2,9) 4.} .The existence of BID-cr-C needs their U (BID-cr-C) open by the doc.i of PTR ^v..

These BID-cr-C were created (after the inventor of TT.0 has created their each viewpoint by indispensable in the TT.0 time of inventing ^{4) a.,/ b., n1/2} ); They provide the conclusion mode with the Supreme Judicial Court ^{4) g.(2-8)} obtain TT.0 relative to RS ^iII.1 creative height Q ^plcsbasis.Inventor usually no longer understand his/her creationary/invention of his/her TT.0 bottom design/viewpoint and therefore only implicitly at doc.0 ^{5) b., V.} in they are disclosed.They by " definitional " subject content defined " disclosure " true (will use in claim construction) modeling polymerization or independently o-/AD-de-C imply, do not need to define BID-cr-C one to one, and can having to explicitly and/or implicitly be disclosed yet.That is, o-/AD-/BID-cr-C or their o-/AD-/BID-de-C does not need to be distinguished immediately in doc.0.But rationality shows ^{*), D1/N1}: these BID-de-C/BID-cr-C, also known as element de-C/cr-C ⁹⁾, finally in science correctly to " the base configuration block " of the present invention/TT.0, the separate point of view modeling namely implemented by TT.0.The number of these BID-cr-C in TT.0 and specific " needing position ", namely by the case of the Supreme Judicial Court ^{4) a.-f.} its " invention/creationary design " of hint, determines the creative height of TT.0 relative to the ps+pa identified by RS ^iII.1/.2 q ^plcs, thus BID-ps+pa-C invents the time at TT.0 ^{5) d., 6) c.} already present things modeling before, and thus BID-de-C for defining BID-cr-C wherein and how defining BID-cr-C modeling ^{4) g.(5-8)} .

The AD-cr-C of the classical mode that the fact is determined is trusted (being placed in FSTP term) TT.0 and their AD-de-C, namely only complete in them, although they are usually not enough ^{4) g.(5-8), 7)} .The Supreme Judicial Court requires that the more careful fact is determined ⁴⁾and be indifferent to it and how work.FWTP technology by seeking AD-cr-C/AD-de-C refinement in doc.0 ^{4) e., N5 i), 9) 1.} for they comprise ^{9) 1.} bID-cr-C/BID-de-C eliminate the deficiency that the classical fact determines.These refinements are always open by doc.0 for posc personnel, and wherein it describes the invention details realizing its TT.0 how actually in the mode that can realize.

This FSTP of each suggestion of the Supreme Judicial Court realizes ^{4) e.-g.} (based on the refinement of the AD-cr-C by BID-cr-C, namely by the definition of concept " refinement ", not changing the implication of AD-cr-C) proposes the problem summarized by following two some sentences.

Underlying issue is based on following consideration.We tell us about all knowledge of physics and engineering execution regularity, produced problem are transformed to suitable coordinate system (in our context: the suitable KR transforming to PTR), than original coordinate system, i.e. and " o-KR " of doc.0 ^{d3/ n3} , usually greatly simplify problem and make more easily to deal with problems.In fact, this phenomenon is also applicable to PTR and by by FSTP technology it being transformed to its AD-KR from its o-KR and transforming to its BID-KR subsequently ^{d3/ n3} and be utilized.Therefore, problem is, whether the simplification of this PTR realized as these representation of knowledge conversion (KRT) proceeds to reduce the separate point of view that the such as Supreme Judicial Court requires ⁴⁾, also known as creationary/independently conceive ^{4) e.} number (when starting to retrieve from RS it, being indispensable for searching relative to its solution/TT.0 of its prior art RS).

Such second extra problem is: even if the creative height of TT.0 can be determined, by this way uniquely based on similar AC ^iII.2 that may there is alternative and significantly different BID-cr-C set?

Normally be contemplated to be, if expert is according to mathematics/IT/ linguistics etc. and more according to the statement of Patent Law field, KRT in fact will have these impacts.Otherwise but also set up.All material facts change into (for non-usual PTR) relative to all KRT, unless doc.0 is contradiction, it is here excluded.

BID-cr-C is obtained in order to be provided in ^{7 ) c.} time in the face of the thinking of problem of any PTR-PS, brief overview FSTP test ¹⁾work.For any AC ^iII.1/2 (becoming normal form by making both FOL predicates itself and TT.0 to be compared) FSTP tests the " 1-cr utilizing and fabricate ⁱ-C " carry out modeling, wherein need in this AC ^{6) a., 7) c.} at least one separate point of view is for creating this 1-cr ⁱ-C, makes by the q in them, AC/mod (q-cr ⁱ-C) antstT.0.

In order to make it possible to clearly to understand these problems, provide the definition being suitable for mathematics of the implication about term " independence ", " inventive aspects " and " inventive concept " ^{2), 3)}, this then need such as concept " AD-KR (PTR) ", i.e. each " BID-KR (PTR) ", in brief such definition of " AD-PTR "/" BID-PTR ".These definition of following detailed description, facilitate the analyzing in detail of the o-/AD-/BID-PTR run into.These concepts clarifying any patent system bottom show, the prompting of the Supreme Judicial Court ⁴⁾hint " example change " ⁴⁾.They require that the enhancing of the bottoming (ground laying) of all patentability aspects of inventing is understood.

This analyzing in detail shows, is after this at least developed, also known as Exact knowledge by the rationality of people from Aristotle ^*)advance and by people such as Leibnitz, newton, Kants ³⁾clearly state, the patent case of this Supreme Judicial Court ⁴⁾in fact repeatedly point out with " straight line ": create separate point of view/design straight line on, here by the Supreme Judicial Court they for patent decide in the fact and law without the effort of controversial/consistance/predictability/stability in and be felt.

For rational eternal evolution, patent business practitioner do not need to this " straight line " metaphor carry out mathematical discussion, here: rationality by people create/for people.Geometrically its be " rational relation " bunch " tangent line bunch " ^*), it is from " without rational relation " bunch ⁴⁾, be namely separated from " rationality does not now reach ".He/her does not need the mathematical details of probing into follow-up work yet ^{4) b.} .His/her GPRS whole are the definition subsequently about PTR and K (PTR).Thus definition/note 1-6 makes it possible to this practical side of grasping " pure in science " patented technology.

definition 1: if create independently cr-C, then " viewpoint " is called as " independently ", here: " cr-is independent ".

note 1: independently prefix " cr ", i.e. this restriction of the wider concept of the independence of viewpoint/design, for reminding " the intelligence measure " that lack all NPS and use ^{4) a.(i)} , " invention measure " ^{4) a.(ii)} , " separate point of view ", " invention measure " etc. natural language term ^{2), 3)}the accuracy of concept.On the contrary, the implication of " independence " used as the case of the Supreme Judicial Court in these term/concepts is here suitable for mathematically defining ¹⁰⁾.That is, " cr-independence " also known as " ind" below relation definition 2indicate the case when referring to separate point of view/measure/design Deng Shi Supreme Judicial Court ^{4) a.} implication accurately.Due to their case, rational like there are not other of this term ^*)implication.

definition 2if: (C ' ∈ the CC of BID-C} ∧ 1-dC '): .) c= c∧ :) { BID-C} C ' ≠ { { BID-C} C ' } C ' mod (1-CC) }, wherein " c" represent the mirror image predicate 9 of C) 1.-2..If " dep": := then BID-C} is called as " ind _c".

note 2: the term " independence " of the Supreme Judicial Court ^{4) a., 4) g.(5), 9) 5.} implication this mathematical definition only to BID design set up because many AD-C ^{4) g.(5), 7) c., 9) 1.-2.} notional ambiguity. ind{ definition of BID-C} is write, for any c ', as follows set up: .) its by TT.0 restriction add to by the content of BID-C} C ' definition, and :) c ' .i, C " .i ∈ Q ^plcs-AC ∧ makes dC ' .i, i.e. definition amendment 1-CC.i:C ' .i/mod (1-CC) of C ' .i antc ' .0=>C " .i/mod (1-CC) antc " .0 ^{9) 3.} ∧ does not both have antdC ' .i is made to revise the relation of the existence before 1-CC.

Especially, PTR can have different maximum ind{ BID-cr-C}.Further, TT.0's is maximum ind{ BID-cr-C} is defined relative to one or several posc of its PTR and the RS of this PTR, and TT.i applies this impact potentially.

Statement below all, such as, about the theorem 2 of the unchangeability of all normalization KR relative to PTR problem, experience ind{ the posc personnel of BID-cr-C} confirm, their residue evidence is uncontested mathematics subsequently.The red line of this vow of the posc fact about posc personnel never should be crossed over by law court, unless law court proves its respective posc expert opinion.Unfortunately, this red line is crossed over by law court once in a while, brings heavy result ¹⁾.

definition 3: for KR (PTR), if " USSCov (KR (PTR)) " is that it is by INDKR (PTR) limited U (C.i) subset USS ^{indKR (PTR)}the scope of the document formula covered: ∪ ^{1≤indKR (PTR)≤INDKR (PTR)}{ USS ^{indKR (PTR)}}=∪ u (C).

Z is called as { USS ^{indZ '-KR (PTR)}and { USS ^{indZ "-KR (PTR)}between " represent conversion RT ", condition to be Z be z '-KR (PTR) is to z " o-/AD-or the AD-/BID dijection ∧ of-KR (PTR) { o, AD, BID}, for 0≤i≤I for ∈ ^{n3., V.} set up:

Z-KR (TT.i)=∪ u (z-C.i) is by MUI ^m.i, 1≤m≤Mi ∧ BID-KR (TT.i)= ^{∪ 1≤j≤J}u (BID-cr-C.i.j) is open.

note 3if: proved by background, then can skip o/AD/BID/KR.For i>0 ^{6) a} ., U (z-C.i) trivialization can be made.This description of the expression conversion of K (PTR) shows, o-PTR usually but the non-element of the claim discussed always identifying TT.0 ^iII.1 x.0.n.In a word, X.0.n that finally determines does not experience AD-/BID-RT.That is, these dijections only perform the RT of element character (described based on C by P, vice versa ^{9) 1.-3., 9) 5.} ).

Analyze PTR ^iII.1 and the mixed property ignoring its o-/AD-KR (PTR) is usually mislead ^{4) g.(5-8), 7) c.} .Therefore, in order to determine the fact of such as its o-TT.0 relative to the creative height of its prior art o-RS in science, the law ambiguity of random o-/AD-cr-C is (such as, about the law ambiguity of their independence, at the o-/AD-KR of PTR ^{7) c., 9) 5.} in almost can not detect) must by for additional and " pure legally " ^{9) 5.} the disclosure of BID-cr-C ^{5) b.} select doc.0 and be removed, BID-cr-C is in semantically refinement ^{9) 5.} the o-/AD-cr-C of TT.0.Only the o-/AD-cr-C of this accreditation is correct and legally in knowledge engineering and IT ^{4), 9) 5.} reliable, namely legally in " plcs " and " pmgp " ^{1), 9) 5.} not easily make mistakes.Two some sentences below describe this two Z in detail, i.e. AD-RT and BID-RT (referred to as " AD " and " BID ").For TT.0, AD by constant error solution legally informal/text/set transform of the USS (o-KR (TT.0)) of figure becomes formal ^iII.3.1 but the USS misled legally (AD-KR (TT.0)), only this set transform is become pure legally by BID subsequently ^{9) 5.} the set of USS (BID-KR (TT.0)).Thus BID realize/evaluate by each the possible { independence of BID-cr-C} of the TT.0 set up.

At WO 2012/022612 ^{section.II.A.1}in describe the important first step AD just mentioned of the TT.0 starting to analyze PTR in detail.AD ends to send the formal AD-of technical foundation of TT.0 x.i.n ^{iII.1, iII.3.1} , it is only arbitrarily identify, namely in the design of use compound ^{4) g.(1-8) 7) c., 9) 5} .shi Changchang remains fuzzy/fallibility.Should " AD dijection " must can not change by doc.i, o-KR (PTR) problem that 0≤i≤I describes, both sides only use C, their USS and their semanteme of vague definition.That is, the o-KR ambiguity of TT.0 is also set up for its AD-KR, although significantly reduce.In other words, AD-RT by word disclosed in doc.0/brute facts of figure, namely finally all and true accurately, although be only that fuzzy unofficial technical foundation is true at first ^iII.1 , be transformed into the fact that certain is not too fuzzy, as formal technology material fact ^iII.1 , but still be often fallibility legally.But any such formalization makes it possible to the BID-RT going back ambiguity in definition when initial, this finally makes it possible to (because they narrow realize simplicity) determines the fact pure legally of TT.0 exactly.That is, any such formalization be convenient to the most at last compound C and c(to the modeling of compound material fact) resolve into " more refinement " technically accurately and BID-cr-Cs/BID-cr-pure legally cs ^{9) 1.-3.} .Again, any such AD and BID needs to be confirmed by poposc.

The inverse BID of BID ^-1also by itself BID-cr-C} and USS ({ BID-cr-C}) defines its USS (AD-KR (TT.0)) and their BID-cr-C of comprising exactly, this then make it possible to define AD exactly ^-1and USS (o-KR (TT.0)) and their BID-cr-C of comprising, this establish on the whole this AD zero BID { o-cr-C}, also known as CRTD ^d5/N5.Doc.0 can disclose that different { BID-cr-C}, this makes it possible to refinement AD and BID accordingly.On the whole, the AD of o-KR (PTR) is determined AD-K (PTR) and adds about the knowledge of o-KR (PTR) content obtained from the latter by poposc by disclosed in doc.0 to; And BID determines BID-K (PTR) and the knowledge of again adding to about the AD-K obtained from the latter by poposc (PTR).

Will | { BID-cr-C.j}|=J and BID-cr-C.j is designated as " BID-C.0.j _n", condition is that X.0.n it belong to, and result in Σ ^1≤n≤Nj _n=J, ∪ ^1≤n≤N∪ ^1≤jn≤Jnu (BID-C.0.j _n)=BID (USSCov (AD-KR (TT.0))), and therefore BID-KR (TT.0)=U (BID-cr-C.0.j) | 1≤j≤J}={{ (x, T) | ∈ BID ^-1(BID-cr-C.0.j) } ∪ (x, F) | ∈ BID ^-1(BID-cr-C.0.j) } | 1≤j≤J}.The set of individual such J subset that total BID of PTR represents that BID-PTR comprises (I+1), each J subset comprises a pair (x, T) set and (x, F) set, is called the T-/F-set of (each BID-cr-C).That is, the set for the specific J subset of RS is comprised for PTR, BID-TT.i, wherein at least one ≠ the reciprocity subset of TT.0.AD and BID is the dijection between each U (C), the dijection " BID* " between the element not having U (C).This BID* is known " coordinate system transformation ", is the conversion between o-PTR, AD-PTR and BID*-PTR here.That is, the real vague generalization that 3 are this known concept is defined, because it realizes the space of this extra dijection BID* for PTR leaves.

definition 4: in some cases, statement " ", " ... ∈ ... ", " ", " ind... ", " ...=... " confirmed by posc personnel Deng needs ^n1-3 , this is represented by suffix " c " subsequently, such as " ", " ∈ _c", " ", " ind _c", "= _c" etc.

note 4: in mathematics, this class example additionally confirmed of posc personnel is provided by extra axiom, and these confirmations do not need to comprise above relevant common skill/creativeness " above-posc ", studying in great detail disclosure ^{5) b.} , namely do not need to exceed posc.That is, mean that the establishment of this statement needs discrete axiom, namely each posc confirms.In mathematics, for the whole mathematical theory world, only may need once this extra axiom, such as the parallel principle of Euler's geometry, the major part in them does not return this axiom.This that may need posc for any statement here additionally confirms.Therefore, these posc repeated confirm the worldlet defining himself, and each statement wherein about PTR is real.Hereinafter, suppose to guarantee " _c" term approved, be namely axiom.

definition 5: be applied to PTR or its TT.0 for PTR, RT ^{n5i)-iii), 9) r1.} series connection BID zero AD, be called PTR/TT.0 to BID-PTR/-TT.0, also known as PTR ⁰/ TT.0 ⁰(KR-) " normalization RT ⁰", be " complete RT, CRT ".

For PTR, the subset of AD arrives surjection map be called as PTR " its ⁰ _c" relation.For PTR and { RT thereof ⁰, " normalization similar shape n ≌" as given a definition:

aD its ⁰bID (such PTR is called as " can be normalized ") ∧ , AD " makes AD '-TT.0 ≌aD "-TT.0 ⁿ⁵ⁱⁱ ) set up.

n ≌pTR is called as " non-usual n-p ".

lemma 1: for n-p PTR prosaically only 1 o-TT.0/mod ( ≌) (see ftn ^{5) a.} ).

theorem 1: for n-p PTR=> { BID-cr-C} is ≌.

prove: suppose that "=> " is false hint ', RT ⁰" there is { BID '-cr-C}, { BID "-cr-C}:{BID '-cr-C}- ≌{ BID "-cr-C}=>=>o '-TT.0 ≌{ BID '-cr-C} n ≌{ BID "-cr-C} ≌o "-TT.0=> '-TT.0, o "-TT.0:o '-TT.0 ≌"-TT.0=> is contrary with lemma 1 for o.Prove to end

note 5: annotation i)- vii) contribute to understanding definition above and their use in the FSTP of PTR analyzes.

i)when the FSTP starting PTR analyzes, usually can not determine 5 exactly) the dijection D3 of a.AD and BID, namely, it starts from " dijection of vague definition " AD-/BID-RT0, also known as the normalization D3/N3 of TT.0, and subsequently, for i>0, the AD-/BID-RT0 (TT.i) of the dijection of same vague definition.In more detail:

Although BID is used for the initially fuzzy semanteme of AD-KR (PTR) (as felt in the personnel by MUI.i original tally doc.i thus intuitively distributing " type " equity " first semanteme " to these MUI.i, namely as when when initial, improve o-KR (PTR) by MUI and obtain AD-KR (PTR) from it time sensation such) be refined into (specific for RS) BID-KR (PTR) accurately, it is by " pure legally " ^{9) 5.} bID-cr-C, creativeness/invention design is (as needed in the Supreme Judicial Court ^{4), 9) 5.} ) exactly/mathematically modeling,

PTR analyze commitment, when there is not TT.0, namely by design know semantic expressiveness time, AD for providing the basis of this BID, namely AD before it is marked by MUI from o-KR (PTR), but subsequently obviously by this MUI ^iV.support.Be designed for and identify that this basis of BID-cr-C accurately starts from identifying information ^v.will " the item MUI of mark " (semantic unit in=doc.i be associated with the first semanteme just described when initial), it is the most progressively ^{ii), 9) 1.-5.} implement to distribute to BID-by generation about the system user of the PTR-DS of this PTR x.i.j semanteme accurately.Before accurate semanteme is distributed to " MUI ", they do not represent important semanteme legally, and are only unit's semanteme useless legally.

Rethinking step above: such as, when initial, find this fuzzy RT of PTR the user of the IES for generating PTR-DS ⁰' afterwards, he/her must make its BID '- x.0.j, also known as BID- c.0.j ^{9) 1.-5.} accurately (by posc personnel ^{d4, n4} confirm), imply that it ensures to be somebody's turn to do { BID '-cr- cpure legally ^{9) 5.} (implication of other C is irrelevant).Due to these BID '-cr- cintelligence simplicity ^{7) b., 9) 1.-3.} , this is always possible.Once define these accurate BID- x.0.j, BID is accurately reversible, thus determines the AD-of TT.0 exactly x.0.j ^{d3-5/ n3-5} .This terminates in above lemma 1, the claim/patent discussed of n-p PTR only have single o-TT.0/mod ( ≌) ^{5) a., 10)} .

Difference between AD-RT and BID-RT on existence foundation: open by doc.0 ^{5) b.} when, by visibly different (although being fuzzy) AD-C potentially ^{n3:l), 9) 5.} if (by posc ^{d4/ n4} confirm), AD-RT achieves " AD (again) design " chance various potentially of PTR.On the contrary, BID-RT only achieves " AD conceives refinement " of that selected, usually fuzzy AD-C, becomes legally ^{9) 5} pure Y/N-BID-cr-C.That is, BID can not change the fuzzy judgement implemented by the AD of PTR.

ii)if for o-TT.i , then BID-TT.i=> anaD-TT.i (such as BID-TT.i).Otherwise do not need to set up: for TT.i, normalization needs do not exist completely, or only exist for some its BID-cr-C, and they are pure legally ^{9) 5.} , particularly for i=0.

iii)although have ignored usually, normalized or not exclusive TT.0 here, FSTP technology obviously also can process them.In invention or the patent time of TT.0, these deficiencies usually suitably can be removed by unfavorable term of doc.0 and/or logically and avoid.

iv)some o-/AD-/BID predicates usually not only ≌ _c, and even for some RT ⁰identical.

v)although the AD-KR of PTR is convenient to describe the implication implemented by its TT.0 more accurately, its BID-KR is for the creativeness/invention accurately determining to be implemented by its TT.0 and identify that its pmgp (such as patent qualification) aspect is usually indispensable exactly based on this.

vi)normalization about PTR/TT.0 is regarded as not affecting ps, namely set up: RT (ps): :=ps.Reason is, for the priori that all ps conceive, also must suppose that their all posc-RT are known.Otherwise only based on ps design, i.e. Q ^plcsthe TT of=0 can become Q by posc-RT ^plcs>0, with the conceptual conflict of plcs.This will study in great detail in other places.

vii)the necessity of the AD-KR of PTR is two aspects: first, than its o-KR of only use of Chang Keneng ^{2), 3)}situation, namely for indicating the accurate meaning of these terms, they are for from doc.i ^{5) a.} the TT.i obtaining them is more accurately must be obligato.Secondly, they provide unique guide of the element of BID-C and vC for systematically retrieving PTR, as removed the deficiency of AD-C by their decomposition ^{7) b.} required such legally.

theorem 2: if TT.0 is can be normalized, then it is relative to the creativeness of RS ⁿ⁶ height be relative to normalized invariant.

That is, TT.0 is in PTR n-p=>

.)Q ^plcs(RT ⁰′(PTR))＝Q ^plcs(RT ⁰″(PTR)) RT ⁰′,RT ⁰″∧

:)Q ^plcs-PS(RT ⁰′(PTR)) N≌Q ^plcs-PS(RT ⁰″(PTR)) ′,RT ⁰″。

prove: only need proof first invariant .) because relatively .) exceed :) be ordinary.Always Q ' is shown by utilizing theorem 1 ^plcs=Q " ^plCs.) and proof based on logarithm value Q ^plcsconclusion.

Pass through ^{d3/N3, 9) 1.-3.} for RT ⁰' set up, BID '-TT.0={BID '-cr-C.0.j _n| 1≤n≤N, 1≤j _n≤ Jn, Σ ^1≤n≤Nj _n=J}.

Make to be designated as ^iII.2 bID '-AC::=<BID '-C ^aC.i.j _n| 1≤n≤N, 1≤i≤I, 1≤j _n≤ J _n, Σ ^1≤n≤Nj _n=J> ^iII.2 ,

And BID '-Q ^aC: :=<BID '-ANC ^aC.i.j _n| 1≤n≤N, 1≤i≤I, 1≤j _n≤ J _n: Σ ^1≤n≤Nj _n=J>,

Thus BID '-ANC ^aC.i.j _n:: if=(BID '-C ^aC.i.j _n=BID '-C.0.j _n), then BID '-A ^aC.i.j _n,

Otherwise BID '-NC ^aC.i.j _n, as posc personnel ^{9) 3.} what judge is such.

Subsequently for RT ⁰' set up Q ' ^plcs=Σ ^1≤n≤N | { NC ^aC.i.j _n| 1≤j _n≤ J _n| .<A>

Omit hereinafter " ⁰" .) proof by induction start from showing all KR (= ) in there is Q ^plcs(PTR)=0 there is hypothesis (*): := " ∧ ': Q ^plcs(PTR ')=Q ' ^plcs>=1 " hint is conflicted with theorem 1.Q ' ^plcs=0 means ^iII.1 , ^iII.2 : 0:-AC ' ∈ posc+pa ' *, 0-AC '/mod (0-CC ') antstT.0 ', namely for this 0-AC ', is made by <A> | { BID '-cr-C} ^0-AC' |=0 set up, namely BID '-TT.0 based on '-C is expected by ps+pa '-C, simultaneously according to (*), has " ∧ " ∈ ps+pa ' * makes | and BID "-cr-C} ^aC" |>=1 sets up.This conflicts with theorem 1.

Present hypothesis ∧ , Q ^plcs≤ K, makes Q ^plcs=Q ' ^plcs ' set up, and (* *) " ∧ " Q " ^plcs=K+1 ", subsequently according to Q ' ^plcs=K, has: -AC ' ∈ ps+pa ' *, K-AC '/mod (K-CC ') antstT.0 ', namely for this K-AC ', is made by <A> | { BID '-c-C} ^k-AC' |=K, namely BID '-TT.0 based on other BIC '-C are expected by ps+pa '-C, simultaneously according to (* *), by " ∧ AC " ∈ ps+pa " * makes | and BID "-cr-C} ^aC">=K+1 sets up.This conflicts with theorem 1.

Prove to end

theorem 3: TT.0 is that in PTR, unique BID is cuttable ^{*) [BN]}=> is for TT.0, above .) and :) character also sets up.

Prove: due to the uniquely reduction property/can be rewritability of TT.0, for BID-KR only single ¹⁰⁾rT ⁰=>.) and :).Prove to end

annotation 6: once be developed for PTR, BID-KR and ratified by posc personnel, the TT.0 of PTR can not be subject to another BID'-KR's of PTR relative to the confirmable creativeness/invention height of its RS threat.Unchangeability :) be convenient to check all (namely a small amount of) RT ⁰, check whether following Q is existed in them ^plcspath, at this Q ^plcspmpg (i.e. § § 101 on path ^{4) e.-g., 9) 5.} ) need/prove when determine the TT.0 of PTR relative to its prior art RS pmgp height time, some its Q ^plcscreativeness/invention design must not be counted into.If the design of too much creativeness/invention is by like this " devaluation ", then this may cause TT.0 to be not suitable for patent ^{4) g.(2-5), 9) 5.} .Theorem 3 set forth simply to be existed for evaluating relative to all KR/RT for PTR/TT.0 ⁰unchangeability .) and :) and other modes, although its prerequisite may be difficult to check afterwards, namely must be set up by priori when writing claim, simultaneously these theorems 1 and 2 are highly susceptible to also checking afterwards perhaps all actual PTR problems occurred.

IV. pTR-DS, for generating its PE2E service and using its application

The object of the PTR-DS of the PTR in IES is (as an application system ^iII.1 , imagination PTR-DS is used for it and uses) be the latter can be answered about this inquiry K (PTR) immediately by all information relevant legally of any automatically obtained from PTR-DS about K (PTR).That is, PTR-DS should its IES of use discuss in real time for the word of PTR in the personnel that involve compensate its scarce capacity that the limited capability due to its short-term memory causes, correctly and intactly to present all answers about any problem to any in K (PTR) immediately.By understanding, which discussed IES at any time, such as, by discussing in real time and perform real-time word wherein and measure acoustically monitoring this word.For this reason:

1.IES center reply FSTP Innovation Model 10) the representation of knowledge analysis bottoming term/concept/function and first obtain " only plcs FSTP-D from SoMUI disclosed in chapters and sections V. ⁰⁰", and by pmgp, filtration thus obtain FSTP-DS is carried out to it subsequently ^{0 4) e.-g.} .That is, the initial o-KR (PTR) of PTR is transformed into its final BID-KR (PTR) by step by step, alternatively and iteratively ^iII.3.2 (not being still its PTR-DS).For this reason, PTR-PS (such as based on FSTP test) is applied to the MUI.i item (being supplied to it by 2.IES center) of SoMUI by this machine.Except the MUI.i provided by the doc.i of open TT.i, SoMUI also comprises all MUI.i provided by document, and it describes .) concept patent system NPS, and :) posc that will use in discussed PTR analyzes ^{4) a.(2) 5) d.} , namely user will revise/use/all MUI.i of explaining potentially.Like this ^v., 1.IES center enables its user such as by carrying out following identification to " TSII item of information total collection ", determining and adding (if not yet wherein) determining TSII, and it is functionally PTR-DS,

I) by doc.i ^v., 0≤i≤I is open, the unofficial character of all elements namely in its o-KR and their predicate,

Ii) the AD-plcs relation of all elements ^{*), 3), 4)}, each relation is represented as predicate ^iII.3.2 ,

Iii) by AD-plcs relation, BID predicate is resolved into also known as AD predicate ^{iII.3.2, 9) 1.-2.} link, namely imply the maximum set that the creativeness needed for evaluation of their independence/invention BID conceives,

Iv) as true by the secondary BID-plcs of the technology of PTR ^iII.1./2. minimum creativeness/invention that the TT.0 of PTR described implements relative to its prior art RS,

V) as pe or npe ^{4) e.} and from iv) the secondary pmgp of the technology of PTR is true ^iII.1 the quality of all BID designs obtained,

Vi) for can from all elements of TSII obtain and cause the given application of all elements of TSII useful allly prove chain,

Vii) all-links of the instant access of all elements for TSII is provided.

2.IES center is divided into machine D and E (skipping IES details), reflection is by step I)-vii) the many different subject content tackled, its reply .) according to user ask to generate PTR-DS and :) distinguish and reply about the actual functional capability needed for its all inquiry of PTR.That is, first, for user's given information being input to the function at 1. centers, obtain all item of information i for making the latter from this information)-vii), and secondly, for distinguishing all application queries about PTR immediately and replying immediately them by the given expression of user.Both rely on application and need with user application mutual, for suitably generating all elements of TSII and making them suitably can present immediately.

How Fig. 1 to 3 describes this Liang Ge IES center for its K (PTR), i.e. each KR (PTR) conversion, exemplarily conceptually makes generation, namely uses 5 the machine A-E altogether involved during PTR-DS to become overall respectively.

Fig. 1 shows the internet use of IES.Ordinary, IES can also partly, and such as use on PC or LAN etc., it comprises (part) FSTP centring system like this.Arrow deixis is called.

The exemplary overall architecture that the internal services that Fig. 2 shows IES provides." general present system " comprises the software platform (be called term " use classification ", and comprise operating system and computer hardware, see lower Fig. 3) of bottom.Thered is provided by 2.KR (PTR) transform center in IES these services inner, it comprises machine A-C.But it achieves the integrated use of multiple existing and technical information that is thus incompatible indispensable ground conbined usage/mark/communicate/store/transfer/input/output, this integrated use utilizes their preexist technical interface, thus machine

Service that A provides " documentation & info arranges in detail ", i.e. " identification of PTR knowledge, in detail row and mark " service.Therefore, it is called as " PTR adjusting machine ", provides potentially based on common IT from IES outside, such as, provided by " PE2E high-end business " (as hereafter by Fig. 3 a-d explanation.)

B realizes " immediate inquiring based on PTR-PS distinguishes/answers " service, i.e. " the instant q/a machine of PTR ".They can by two Database Systems supports, i.e. IADBS and RDBS ¹⁾, they are built and are filled during the calibration/rehearsal of IES for PTR.In other words, its such as with user interactions generate PTR-DS (claimed invention from TSII ^v.one of), for such as via IES (claimed invention ^v.in another) machine C use, or to be used by the non-IES of any other of certain q/a system with the PTR fact, with by external user, such as human intelligible.The example of known PTR-PS is FSTP test macro ¹⁾.

Communication service that C provides " user/KR (PTR) " is namely IES " PTR-I/O machine ".

1.KR+K (PTR) transform center, comprises machine D-E, thus machine

Service that D provides " the formal true identification of the technical foundation based on PTR-PS ", and be called as " PTR initially rehearse machine ", because it is formally true for unofficial for (to now calibrated) technical foundation of PTR true (KR) is transformed into its technical foundation ^iII.1 and primary by them in passing E.

Service that E provides " technology based on PTR-PS is main to be determined with the secondary formal fact ", and be called as " PTR finally rehearse machine ", because it is for being transformed into the main and secondary formal fact of its technology by formal for the technical foundation of PTR true (KR and K) ^{iII.1, III.3.2, V.} and primary by them in passing B.

All 5 machines can perform at any time, and namely IES can be in calibration, rehearsal and/or query pattern.Their above functional descriptions all are only rough exemplary overview, as presenting subsequently.

Fig. 3 a to d outline PTR adjusting machine A service served by some non-IES, the overall architecture that such as, inside IES service when following PE2E high-end business (" PE2E ") or another mark service are replaced provides; Do not have although current Functional Design to pay close attention to and meet such as inventor or the auditor demand when carrying out work to invention, have good reason ^{4) h.} expect that this will significantly change very soon.

Fig. 3 a shows the PTR adjusting machine A using PE2E as the IES on its basis, thus PTRKR machine provides FSTP users' guidebook to the use of PE2E extraly.PE2E service is as himself in fig 3b, namely without any extra IES users' guidebook, is delivered to user.Fig. 3 c and 3d shows PE2E service call IES and serves, thus these IES of PE2E call and quote the former using as compound system, namely directly quote each machine in some machines selected from IES.PE2E service is in all cases by PTR-DS/IES service extension, in any case mid-term needs this high-touch feature on PE2E, the difference between these four framework 3a to d is, these services can use in varying degrees for PE2E service-user.

Key distinction short summary between PE2E service and PTR-DS service is as follows:

Two PTR-DS services based on Patent Law/case are semantic/practical, namely in the face of each real-time query/answer, tackle two kinds of different KR functions, have much higher law quality, i.e. each availability quality than PE2E service.More accurately, PTR is being marked by means of PE2E, make after it provides the MUI of chapters and sections V., can PTR-DS be provided to serve on the PTR of this mark, and its can in much higher law rank immediately semantically/practicably send service based on Patent Law/case, these two aspects are not even all solved by PE2E service.

See clearly based on the case of the Supreme Judicial Court and the new basic theory of knowledge and KR ^{*), 4), iII.} , these two PTR-DS services all can not be designed when not having FSTP technology or only be imagined.They achieve the technology of Danone power far away unique in world wide and reliably evaluation of markers invention and prior art thereof legally, even achieve the real-time answer of all legal issues about PTR.

Fig. 3 e has clarified (inner " sandwich structuralized ") overall " the use classification " of the IES under all situations: inquiry and FSTP present machine/service B and C and always can only use rehearsal machine/service D and E to be supplied to their function, D and E always can only use calibration machine/service A to be supplied to the function of D, thus the use of these services normally will be carried out iteratively and alternatively, and their execution can be overlapping in time.

Realize very senior IT service, key point during the worldwide use that such as PTR-DS serves is easy to be familiar with this service and is easy to by this service support.Both are strongly depend on " access service " that provide PTR-DS to serve to user, are IES service here.Therefore final attention is the PTR-I/O machine C of IES.First: under the control of PTR-DS service, it any state residing for IES can check qualification and/or the motivation of any user action, namely asks to point out this action to user.That is, in arbitrary above pattern and/or in any KR of PTR, and using other to serve, such as during PE2E service, but the user of IES service impassively can be guided by its A/GUI, safely by PTR-DS Service controll.Thus, the mode that can automatically and/or alternatively and with user control in detail at any time via the A/GUI of IES, PTR-DS service is to instruction manual relevant Patent Law/case/examination/KR (comprise each technology/epistemological/mathematics) background.Such as, when the unofficial fact of technical foundation is only mentioning of the disclosure of the dominant of the character of (document involved provides) element and recessiveness, PTR-DS serves the technical foundation provided formal true (machine compiles by initially rehearsing) and performs strict PTR understanding, and this can not otherwise ensure.The PTR immediately presented is served by PTR-DS ^iII.3 this KR conversion also can be ratified by posc personnel, and therefore overcome various suspection, this is impossible now under normal circumstances.In fact, many users even self should not mix this background information (this is indispensable now), because the possibility of result is unpredictable.Therefore, even (patent) lawyer also benefits from this PTR-DS and serves, because IES etc. are based on this support of the system of PTR-DS, and advantage therefore and quality.

V. generate method, device and the IES device of PTR-DS

Accompanying drawings provide claimed invention by means of listed 18 below, namely generate PTR-DS for given PTR and on it, generate the disclosure of the further details of IES.First these 7 accompanying drawings 1 to 3 have been reaffirmed to generate at possible PTR-DS the cooperation between IES and the future version of PE2E service on the other hand using PTR-DS generation system between the preparatory stage on the one hand.The chapters and sections of tackling 11 accompanying drawings 4 to 6 and their explanation subsequently disclose claimed invention in the mode that can realize.

Fig. 1 shows the exemplary use (see chapters and sections IV.) of the IES/FSTP system via internet

Fig. 2 shows the exemplary realization (see chapters and sections IV.) of IES/FSTP system

Fig. 3 a shows the exemplary realization (see chapters and sections IV.) of the IES/FSTP system using certain PE2E to serve

But Fig. 3 b outlines the IES/FSTP system (see chapters and sections IV.) certain PE2E service being exposed to user as Fig. 3

But Fig. 3 c outlines the IES/FSTP system (see chapters and sections IV.) exposing certain more PE2E as Fig. 3

Fig. 3 d outline as Fig. 3, when by PE2E service use time IES/FSTP system (see chapters and sections IV.)

" sandwich structuralized " that Fig. 3 e shows IES/FSTP system uses classification (see chapters and sections IV.)

Fig. 4 a shows the illustrative screen sectional drawing (vide infra) of the taskbar compiling page of IES

Fig. 4 b shows the illustrative screen sectional drawing (vide infra) of the initial typing page for PTR-DS maker

Fig. 5 a shows the relational structure (vide infra) between MUI.0 item and the TT.0/i.CT item generated

Fig. 5 b shows the relational structure (vide infra) between MUI.CT item and the TT.0/i.CT item generated

Fig. 5 c shows the relational structure (vide infra) between MUI.CT item and the TT.i/i.CT item generated

Fig. 5 d shows and adds Q to Fig. 5 c ^plcs-AC item (vide infra)

Fig. 5 e shows and determines Q to Fig. 5 a interpolation ^plcsthe RT of-AC item ⁰item (vide infra)

Fig. 5 f shows and determines Q to Fig. 5 c interpolation ^plcsthe RT of-AC item ⁰item (vide infra)

How Fig. 6 a enables its user access the general introduction (vide infra) of the item of its current concern in o-/AD-/BID-KR, " model KR " and " doc navigate KR " about IES if providing

Fig. 6 b shows the ANC matrix (vide infra) of PTR

How Fig. 6 c enables its user overview the demonstration chain (vide infra) of all tests that it involves for any BID-cr-C if showing IES

The item title that GUI in Fig. 4/6 uses is that specific PTR analyzes, i.e. ' 453 patents ¹⁾item title.

At chapters and sections iII.3in described the basic philosophy of the generating process bottom of the PTR-DS for given PTR, be divided into its General Principle towards sub-chapters and sections III.3.1 and sub-chapters and sections III.3.2 ^{4) a.-d.} , it is introduced and describes the simple and clear IT concept of " design " in detail.Their endnote ^4)-7)the FSTP often quoting PTR analyzes ^{4) e.-g.,9) 5.} , i.e. its " FSTP test " ¹⁾, it belongs to functionally equivalent algorithm classification and experiences unsettled patented claim.The invention hypothesis of present patent application disclosed herein is familiar with first performing its FSTP for PTR discussed here and is analyzed.

Therefore for these chapters and sections V., remain in its sub-chapters and sections open

v.1claimed invention method, i.e. all details of each system, Yi Ji

v.2in open by v.1the particular subset of the total collection of the BID-cr-C of the claimed invention enforcement of middle explanation, and

v.3the term of middle these claims of general introduction in fact before takes the photograph ground to the use that these are conceived ^{9) 5., 4) f.} instruction claim meets at § § 112,102,101, and 103 (as ftn ^{4) g.(1-8), 9) 5.} middle statement) under the reason of requirement set forth.Instruction is taken the photograph before this in the instructions of patented claim and the term of claim thereof, namely the requirement of being set forth by these 4 § § is met both them, blank (novum), because traditionally not too focus on legal issue up to now both this, namely provide the not many transparency for these 4 § § up to now.

Therefore, novel right v.1- v.3in the attention of law instruction will obviously be convenient to PTO and final law court to the examination of claimed invention, more than namely illustrating ^{4) h.} " the example change " of statement.

Hereinafter, PTR suffix " ^cT" be usually abandoned, because this can not be misapplied, namely conveniently.

v.1-claimed invention: generate PTR-DS and IES claimed invention and solve the problem known from the usage data storehouse system when proving patent.That is, can not send in real time for any inquiry about PTR correct in complete answer.That is, the invention PTR-DS generated is PTR expert system together with invention IES, and more precisely machine is explained/answered in PTR inquiry in real time.PTR-DS self makes it possible to the very different expert system (ES) of independently building the four corner controlled by PTR-DS on it from IES.Any such PTR-ES is by use PTR-DS and therefore can know

Between the tag entry (MUI) of the information of the PTRCT of given specific " background CT " allrelation, exist limited many uniquelythis relation.By any significant/helpful mode legally for patent business practitioner, these relations make all doc.i (i.e. subject content) item and PTR ^cTall doc.CT (such as law) item implemented relevant (that is, combine all Patent Laws of consideration and case/examination guidance etc. thereof and such as standard etc., be abbreviated as " background ") ^{9) 5.} .

About all reasonable enquirys of these relations, again exist limited many uniquelythis inquiry (such as, with given, specifically language is presented for ES, or by SQL etc.), therefore immediately distinguish any inquiry like this, and correctly and intactly immediately answer its (representing with at user option).

In compiler technologies, PTR-DS about given PTR comprises: non-inventive inquiry parser is (as can by compiler-compiler, such as YACC generates), invention semantic routine, its generate and transfer for all inquiries answer build block, define by the item of the restriction of almost ordinary BID-cr-C modeling (namely, hereafter and describe the semanteme of these routines in V.2, their operations of performing when completing i.e.), and present by the invention of the PTR of data structure PTR-DS.Semantic routine can set up K (PTR-DS) at them and user interactions between PTR-DS generation, it is comprised about after all technology of the potential PTR be just queried and legal information, immediately transfers this information from this PTR-DS.The semanteme of these semantic routine (is linked to the inquiry interpreter that compiler-compiler generates, as known from compiler technologies, be provided for interpreter and can send inquired about information in real time) and therefore illustrate in greater detail their cooperation hereinafter, as the functional realiey of IES.

Generation for any real PTR, (i) its PTR-DS only realizes being possible for the computing machine of the method performing invention, and (ii) PTR-DS is only for controlling the computing machine performing ES.The behavior of both exceedes anyone ability really, owing to

I () wants a large amount of item definitely reliably generating and manage during building PTR-DS, if do not having to generate PTR-DS in computer-controlled situation, then its correctness and integrality cannot confirm, but

(ii) first, the real-time needs of the details using these a large amount of when answering the arbitary inquiry proposed for this PTR, thus these inquiries usually imply the law can not answered in real time completely and/or the problem of technology, although they do not need to tackle bulk information, unless determined answer and be stored in subsequently in PTR-DS to use in real time in order to inquiry later in previous process consuming time.

From it for good and all and intactly instantthis inevitable bulk information transferring the content of having to explicitly and/or implicitly inquiring about is usually up to ten thousand items per hour, the major part wherein transferred only for potential use, and many inquiries can not be answered completely immediately especially, being the occurred problem wanting exhaustive analysis, needing the provision of the ability for realizing claimed invention, with what immediately and for good and all send about any inquiry will arrived between PTR discussion/verification stage all correctly with complete answer.These provisions are: front select all significant problems with taking the photograph and pre-determine they all answers and be stored in PTR-DS, therefore immediately sending of this Query Information is realized, otherwise inevitably only can send in non real-time, particularly prove chain potentially in these answers ^v.2 in to be confirmed by the selection of poposc ^iII.3.2D4/N4 when.In future, these will confirm to confirm being automated further to generate to replace, and it is current is the theme of semantic retrieval, is not namely described in detail in the present patent application.

That is; generate its PTR-DS for any PTR and both the claimed inventions using PTR-DS to realize IES efficiently immediately can answer any technology of the TT.0 about PTR together or the inquiry of law, be not only the automatic business processing that can be performed by people undoubtedly.But these inventions convert these process, such as to make computing machine automatically can provide the more powerful service can sent than people.That is, in order to the computing machine by PTR-DS control ES, make ES for good and all in about any demonstration of PTR in real time for the arbitrary inquiry in for good and all upcoming reasonable enquiry, each answer intactly and is correctly provided.This is assessed by user, PTO or law court subsequently.All these technology of the PTR that can access in real time now and juristic fact are not obtainable in real time up to now.Therefore FSTP can represent " fact is selected and is transformed into and presents in real time " as an alternative.

Frame below shows obvious executable algorithm, the committed step that any embodiment that it discloses the claimed invention generating PTR-DS will perform, and it is the common core of the TT.0 of 3 claimed inventions.Which depict the character of its element, is user's (or automatically) different classes of set that can generate as follows: by BID-cr-C object ^{iII.3.2, 9) 1.-2.} limit the element of these set.These are marked by bold-type letter wherein.Any such BID-cr-C is defined wherein in " ≡ " is expert at below, pronounces " limit generate here set to have the character described thereafter ", if having tail tag note " ^x)", then to be also expert at external declaration by each " x) branch ".The BID-cr-C wherein used belongs to discussed PTR ^cTor claimed invention, as grasped ^v.1 after the philosophy of middle explanation ^v.2 middlely will become more clear and obvious.

This algorithm is the annotation duplicate of claim 2; Therefore it has abandoned the preamble of claim 1.Alternatively, it is by having to explicitly naming the BID-cr-C of these elements ^{9) 1., 2.} emphasize the character of the element of claimed invention.That is, except access more limited in claim 2 design, these elements and their character are structurally identical in two claims, and claim 2 describes them by different terms uniquely.Therefore provided term redundancy is convenient to grasp by BID-cr-C ^iII.3.2 restriction/the character described, claimed invention is based on (particularly the term of claim), and its disclosure here provided is obviously attainable.

Visual by Fig. 5, sub-chapters and sections a)-c) describe these invention elements and character/design 9 thereof in detail) 1.-2., ^v.2 only summarize them.Fig. 6 illustrates the actual use of IES to them of invention subsequently.

Fig. 4 a and 4b illustrates IES user, namely how patent business practitioner can pass through the mark subject content document of the reality selecting him/her to need in this working set in the left column of Fig. 4 a at any time, and on the right side of it, select wherein need and the background parts of the reality marked for this purpose, set up correct working set, generate invention PTR-DS simultaneously or use it by invention IES.Row bottom it shows actual PTR and different moulds, and the execution of IES and/or PTR-DS method/system can illustrate the outward appearance of taskbar and an one popup menu during IES generates the real work of the PTR-DS discussed in fig. 4b.

Fig. 5 and 6 and description thereof disclose the classification that PTR-DS comprises creativeness/invention design, also known as type, also known as kind (claimed invention here considered by means of it and PTR ^cTdesign), i.e. the object of each this kind/type/kind.In popular language, classification and their object can be called as " item ", and as MUI, because once be familiar with " work " of claimed invention, it is usually unworthy that term is distinguished them, namely actually can use them.Fig. 5 pays close attention to their relation that the view of item and PTR-DS comprise, and also known as character, Fig. 6 pays close attention to and schematically presents in these some at the GUI place of IES.Need these two views to meet the needs of patent practitioner, namely meet IES and/or PTR-DS.These needs are described from top to bottom,

The figure of Fig. 6 provides and how to make user can certain CRT of guide to visitors about IES ^{iII.3.2, definition 5} in PTR " subject content " item (see below a)) set, they are all comprised by PTR-DS, and provide he/her how guide to visitors CRT subject content, they proof and based on all these, they prove the set of the use in chain at natural language, also comprised by PTR-DS.Patent business practitioner performs such navigation and no matter, the PTR in any stage uses during analyzing and proves chain, such as, in " PTR-DS generation " pattern or in " demonstration about PTR " pattern.

The figure of Fig. 5 illustrates the mutual relationship between term/concept that claimed invention implements, i.e. the implication of the term of both bottoms.

This two class illustrates the expression of these subject contents and/or law item, i.e. term/concept, and it finally automatically can be translated into mathematical expression, namely makes absolutely accurate become possibility and go to robotization further ^v.2 , do not describe this two aspects here in detail.

In principle, for all PTR, comprise their real background, imply trickle impact ^iII.1 , their PTR-DS be structurally identical and limited (see v.1beginning).Change between PTR-DS is all number and their the user-defined aspect of the object of any classification, is particularly proving in chain.Thus not all categories all needs to have object, namely can be empty.But, the set of all (non-user definition) classification and the relation (and if existing, the object inherits by them) between them always identical.Therefore, even than describing more above, from the prefabricated abstract model of all PTR-DS (background about discussed) and by the interactive controlling of user, the component of the object for this tool shape only can be copied from it for the tool shape (incarnation) of specific PTR generation PTR-DS in any CRT.The parameter of their semantic routine is inserted (thus obtain them apparently from doc.i-MUI, known text-processing routine greatly can support this point) by user interactions subsequently.Therefore this abstract model of PTR-DS can be regarded as (because of height parameter flexibly) class declaration; its object, also known as tool shape be their bottoms from PTR obtain and therefore for the PTR-DS (and their CRT) of its specific claimed invention.Chapters and sections v.2the BID-cr-C defining element character (being collection class) here will be reaffirmed, this class declaration, it is identical that formation also known as abstract PTR-DS and any tool for this abstract PTR-DS form vertical formation, namely the concrete PTR by making the object of this abstract PTR-DS occur carries out its parametrization, and this object is called as PTR-DS (namely abandoning adjective " abstract ").

Although be somebody's turn to do " abstract "/" specifically "; in IT system design, there is fundamental importance also known as " statement "/" object " difference; and be important for the thinking principle of the bottom being expressly understood claimed invention; but it is as mentioned above; in their actual use, these differences may be unworthy.Therefore the above colloquial terms " item " introduced has abandoned it, because it can identify the object of classification or classification.Normal use should " lower concept resolution ", a)-c) more detailed descriptions are presented here and generate or use the term/concept of the process (and therefore being used by the term of claim below) that PTR-DS drives for being described through patent practitioner.These effort are usually quoted in the term of claim 1,2,11,12 and above square from row (a)-(k) in the extracts of 2 and 12.As already explained, any one in these row (except (k)) structurally comprises the identical statement about " it " element and character thereof exactly.

A) Fig. 5 by have thick frame square and oval come identification requirement protection invention reply various classifications.PTR-DS comprises and specifically illustrating for PTR, also known as the object of these classifications, if represent PTR AD or BID-TT.0 item (superincumbent square in, row (a), (b), (d), (e), (g), (h)), then be called " subject content " item, i.e. other each " law " item, although this classification is offending sometimes, shown by the generating item of row (k).The item identified is illustrated, see Fig. 5 a and about the CRT of two in Fig. 5 e by the "●" in their classification ^iII.3.2 consider again, and (if only square in) can be supposed before proceeding or before generating when the invention of request for utilization protection is initial or at it the term of execution after to generate before (if extraly or uniquely oval in) with regard to existence.Priori item is not specific (BID-cr-C of such as claimed invention) for PTR usually, and the item of generation is specific (particularly the BID-cr-C of the TT.0 of PTR) for PTR usually.This two class is not separated on figure, and this difference in using because actual is like not obvious.Relation between is illustrated by the double-headed arrow between them.Relation is not item, but is represented by them and describe.Finally, under any viewpoint of observing PTR, specific CRT ^{iII.3.2, d5} to be used, thus the conversion between CRT/ viewpoint is possible at any time.

Only in order to simplify square in the description of the method, doc.0 is regarded as implicitly comprising doc.CT, and therefore this doc.0 is different from PTR's ^iII.3.1/2.doc.0.This simplification is not used by Fig. 5/6.Doc.CT represent " background " of PTR and be defined as comprising (instructed by its Patent Law, case, authority, their Guidelines for Patent Examination, other law/guidance/etc., posc document) determine the literature collection of the label information item MUI.CT of national patent system, and/or for the confirmation of application specifically recommendation/restriction/warning/right/guarantee/cost/instruct/wait and/or required pososc ^iI.3.2 (see Fig. 5, right side is square).Term " I.CT " represents the compound from doc.CT-MUI, as doc.CT-MUI.

Note, use term/concept " subject content " and " law "/" background " here, but not more abstract and very not identical concept " plcs " and " pmgp " ¹⁾, mean depart from temporarily PTR to epistemological/mathematics/time physics *) opinion, be conducive to the opinion that it is set up using patent practitioner.

In more detail, the law item in Fig. 5 b set forth the legitimacy of the disclosure DIS (Y) of the subject content item Y of such as doc.0.In the simplest situations, Y is element ^{9) 1.} bID-cr-C and disclose it and mean and only notice it ^{7) a.} .But usually " will disclose " more complicated things in more complicated meaning, this describes in detail below.Guide is, disclosure comprise one group one or several clearly vocabulary/MUI.i of semantic/figure, it is allegedly openly Y (see row (b) and (e)) and be subject content item separately or cooperatively.Further, any subject content item y needs " strict legally " to prove J (y) ^b), such as dis (y) ∈ DIS (Y) needs its J (dis (y)).

The similar steps (algorithm see in square) that Fig. 5 c starts to show about TT.0 will involve TT.i, any one in i>0.But " disclosure " of the reciprocity C distinguished in TT.i for BID-cr-C above is here usually different and is notice the behavior that this equity is more complicated than only illustrating in TT.i, namely in all cases, TT.i does not notice this BID-cr-C, but do not realize equity completely or notice the reciprocity C different from it, namely TT.i does not expect this BID-cr-C.This equity " is disclosed " like this (in our concept, we are labeled as subsequently " pseudo-C " or replace with " pseudo-C ") not only need a) to illustrate that this pseudo-C is noticed in where in TT.i, and need pseudo-C ≠ BID-cr-C (both are undertaken by subject content statement) b) is shown.In other words, illustrate that the legitimacy of open pseudo-C comprises the legitimacy (being not only a), as when TT.0) that two subject content statements are shown now.

In other words: except MUI, by the execution of method, device, the step namely by generating PTR-DS (greatly inputting support by user for any BID-cr-C) according to its BID-cr-C, generates all objects.In superincumbent square algorithm, more accurately, in claim 1 and in claim 2 (see v.2), by the set generated that such as SoDIS (Y.0) conceives or SoDIS (Y.i) design limits, there is these different character, implicitly differently defined in (b) and (e) because these BID-cr-C are expert at, in fact they describe the disclosure of two distinct classifications on these two row.To be expert in (c) and (f) until the set that SoJ (dis (y)) generates be about subject content item dis (y) one or several clearly vocabulary/set of the statement of law of the independent or cooperation of semantic I.CT, and be also different.

The item Y and qcc (y) of row (h)/(i) is applicable to about row (b)/(c) and the identical consideration of (e)/(f).

The extra law item being called " ARGC " on row (j) is greatly that user can freely define and makes user (may be automatically generate for any test T (vide infra) by any the sequence from (a)-(i) comprising blue law statement, this test is realized in a word by hypothesis) change into one or several " soft " and equivalently legally to present, prove chain as natural language, it is more suitable for namely using in the real-time debate neutrality of this test.

Final law item on row (k) can always be automatically generated, as known according to database design.

Repeat this point to understand for evaluating it, in other words: clause (a)-(f) and (j) inform and generate such as BID-cr-C as the Y in step (a) .2, namely determine one X.0.n ^{9) 1.} one " element cr/de character ", and other identification items of BID-cr-C are described in later step (b)/(c)/(j), also known as the relation of Y and doc.0, not the continuous intelligence behavior that " equally " pays close attention to this Y, but comprise the intelligence step (also comprising other) of three groups of iteration:

I () identifies " subject content is affine " MUI.0 of Y/BID-cr-C as much as possible, namely by starting from tentatively supposing technically about Y/BID-cr-C ^{iII.3.2, D3} clear definition affine, and create SoDIS (Y) by these MUI.0 subsequently, i.e. one or several technically clear definition of Y ^{iII.3.2, D3} alternative disclosure dis (y).This character of SoDIS (Y) conceives modeling by SoDIS (Y).Thus suppose that any one dis (y) is proved to be legally, it is clarified (ii) that wait until below.

(ii) its " disclosure legalizes affine " I.CT as much as possible is identified, namely by starting from tentatively supposing Y/BID-cr-C for arbitrary such dis (y) ^{iII.3.2, D3} correct legalize affine, and create SoJ (dis (y)) by these I.CT subsequently, namely one or several alternatives of dis (y) correctly legalize ^iII.3.2,d3 set.

Note, except its legal disclosure, the further legal needs that BID-cr-C must meet may be there are, its independence that is that such as such as will provide as a part of doc.CT or that provided by the user of claimed invention ^{iII.3.2, definition 2} and/or indefinite property ^{9) 5.} (but not considering in detail here); and for its test; also to consider other BID-cr-C; and usually also have other I.CT, about any meticulousr like this of BID-cr-C with also can be comprised by SoJ (dis (y)) for the specific legitimacy statement of test.

By SoJ (dis (y)) design this character modeling any to SoJ (dis (y)).Determine subsequently to describe any identification item of BID-cr-C, also known as the relation of Y and doc.0, be modeled as have most technically clear with disclosure accurately and any one has at least one legal proof.

(iii) the suitable item of certain test of execution needed for T in this BID-cr-C and its other item created like this is created, represent together with expression and the unpractical of achievement of T is seen clearly, be transformed into ARGC (T), namely traditionally about the demonstration chain set of T, be suitable in the debate of the BID-cr-C be used under T.

Generate subsequently for doc.i, the equity for this BID-cr-C in i>0, and all doc.is relevant to the peer items in (i)-(iii) comprise, similar with (j) in step (d)-(f) ⁷⁾in step, utilize (i)-(iii), as tested from FETP ¹⁾that knows is such.

For execution step (g)-(j), the consideration identical with the earlier paragraphs just discussed is same applicable.

Thus subject content item is by the confirmation by poposc, the law item support of to be quoted them by lawyer, and both this, namely each PTO and final law court can ratify or disapprove.

B) for the Y of particular B ID-KR (PTR), different SoDIS (Y) and/or different SoJ (dis (y)) can be there is.But they all start consistent in this BID-KR (PTR).This is equally applicable to any BID'-KR (PTR) with BID-KR (PTR) isomorphism, because subsequently by above theorem ^iII.3.2 ensure.Therefore the method for execution requirements protection makes it possible to create and check many redundancies for many PTR.This detects for incipient error and sets up the robustness particular importance of the PTR-DS discussed, and does not describe in detail here.

C) sum up up to now:

Fig. 5 a illustrated in doc.0 square/elliptical in doc.0-MUI priori can the subject content item of TT.0, but to be generated for PTR-DS by step (a)-(c).

How Fig. 5 b makes these dis (y) items " legalize " by I.CT item if additionally illustrating.

Fig. 5 c adds this set of TT.0 item by step (d)-(f), and about the similar setting of the TT.i item of the RS of PTR, 1≤i≤I, uses from the FSTP test for determining the pseudo-item of equity TT.i ⁱ⁾the various simplification known.

Fig. 5 d shows and adds BID-AC item and their continuous item.

Fig. 5 e and 5f gets back to Fig. 5 a, and they are usual and real work is irrelevant, but suppose visual: the different maximum set about the BID-cr-C of TT.0 can exist for single CRT and even not same CRT can exist.They essentially show, and here only for integrality, the mathematics of FSTP technology bottom, namely defines the AD/BID dijection of 3 ^iII.3.2 , how finally defining these dijections by delineating, how to support PTR-DS.That is, Fig. 5 e and 5f outlines PTR-DS and mathematical theorem ^iII.3.2 between link, it guarantees the unchangeability of PTR relative to the creativeness/invention of its KR all.

Although the PTR of invention that Fig. 5 is visual ^cTrelation between the term/concept of-DS, but the final purpose that Fig. 6 finally show any PTR-DS is the execution of computer for controlling.In other words, except being selected potential specific (as the application customizes) PTR of judgement or the marketing system use generating this specific area with their conversion by the fact ^cToutside-DS, claimed PTR ^cTcomputer system that in fact-DS controls (usually different), its (may be exclusively used in) performs this system, make the demand according to application ad hoc inquiry, it always immediately intactly and correctly presents inquired about subject content and juristic fact and based on the demonstration chain needed for them.When there is no the PTR-DS invented, method or the device that can carry out this real-time query answer can not be realized.Only its generation and its use are based on computer implemented process; and utilize the finiteness of PTR; therefore any inquiry that may propose after identifying between its generation is allowed; answer in behavior consuming time potentially subsequently; and store this answer in order to later immediately available, make it possible to realize claimed invention.

For the IES of invention, Fig. 6 is visual three simple but in fact very powerful figures, it supports any Patent Law expert, he/her tests the TT.0 about the such as PTR of the 4 § § of above 35 USC legally, thus proves in the usual manner by extensive and general term or by the technology of each test or any details of legal issue.When his/her known term/concept of guide to visitors, problem, law, case, examination, meeting, summary and other the known set to instruct etc., or his/her known each relevant behavior of guide to visitors, namely when he/her usually " redirect argumentatively (surfing) " and promptly change debate aspect time, in fact a large amount of usually complicated information is tackled (when PTR-DS generates below this aspect, all be accurately determined and prestore), this support is supplied to him/her immediately.Although in fact he/her tackle uncontrollable situation in reality debate, but his/her brain may really not understand this frightening a host of facts, the brain because of people correctly can not maintain the full set that in fact it suppose all facts understood simply definitely in real time.To be no longer tolerable in future about this deficiency (inevitable now) of the demonstration of patent: the expert system (such as IES) based on PTR-DS makes it possible to the risk implemented by this deficiency being avoided priori by rehearsal careful before upcoming debate, as in patent examination situation or lawsuit situation or sale/special permission situation.

Although create extra cost about this rehearsal of debate, but its advantage that can realize not only is to analyze this debate, it is definitely complete, any technology and the legal technicality are correct, completely the same with case, and reliably/greatly predict the judgement that PTO or law court examine, and obtain any information for this object in real time in any moment of this course of the review extraly, it is worth for making when insufficient funds.This demonstrate the actual availability of claimed invention.

In more detail, Fig. 6 discloses 3 groups of items and the relation between them and other the relation with PTR-DS, and be represented as exemplary patterns, IES can obtain from PTR-DS at any time.By the set of these continuous items, obviously they bring a large amount of figures and/or the appreciable expression of other mankind (unspecified) here, IES makes its user can redirect in the aspect of PTR in its CRT expediently, because it for good and all carries out (see Fig. 6 a) in any this debate.These set also make its redirect user immediately can access at a time discussing any to go deep into information, and it is relevant to any BID-cr-C of following two TT.0:

The TT.0 analyzing/use, these information spinners will be comprised by the subject content item of PTR-DS, main relevant to the concrete definition of these BID-cr/de-C, and

The TT.0 of present patent application, these information spinners will be comprised by the law item of PTR-DS, main relevant with the concrete legal relations of I.CT to these BID-cr/de-C, mainly test to some in them relevant and be correlated with (see Fig. 6 b-c) with the demonstration chain based on this two category.

Thus

Fig. 6 a is the schematic sectional drawing of " the investigation window " of the GUI of IES, it illustrates (also see Fig. 6 b-c)

(I) on right side, the PTR heap of 3 TT.i " subject content plane " and its o-/AD-/BID-KR equity subject content item of each TT.i, each TT.i is arranged to " KR ring " (being delimited by dotted line) and have for the specific shape of KR with one heart in its plane, little ellipse representation BID-cr-C (i.e. the pseudo-item of their respective equities) item, selected for one in them, and

(II) in upper left side, this subject content item is again together with relative every other item, the particularly item about its all tests supported by PTR-DS (ARGC item) of its law item and all tests, i.e. relative part PTR-DS, simultaneously

(III) lower left side shows the mark (MUI.i) of the disclosure about selected subject content item in doc.i, and the mark (MUI.CT) implicitly and/or having to explicitly quoted by J and ARGC item in doc.CT.

The TT.i heap on right side obviously for provide to user the subject content item that can overall pay close attention to completely about him/her for the specific graphical overview of PTR.More accurately, it makes IES user can retrieve them, redirect wherein and excavate them, and therefore, it is possible to access all items, for determine their suitable disclosures of being provided by PTR-DS and all they technology and legal relation (being illustrated by Fig. 5), it is by stacking doc.i and the doc.CT partial visual of stacking 3 " Fig. 5 blocks " of upper left side and lower left side.

Fig. 6 b shows from FSTP test 1) the ANC matrix known: the BID-cr-C of PTR-DS is shown in its list, and any entry on its row represents each doc.i, i>0, its equity for this BID-cr-C whether " ANC " the latter ^iII.1 .

Fig. 6 c is different from the doc.i in Fig. 6 b, list and prove chain about patent test the exemplary of (test be separated by thick line), the test particularly carried out typically in patent business, such as 35 USC § § 112/102/103/101 requirements are met for them, but be also that user selects or user-defined (such as, as specific for PTR) test further ^{9) 6.} .Especially, user can define certain AC item by selection from Fig. 6 b, for " expected test " or " plcs height or pmgp high measure " ^{iII.3.1, 1)} and make it be represented as the capable set of ARGC in fig. 6 c.Namely any complete test like this can be represented as some different ARGC items, and each ARGC item is represented by the row be separated.How form square middle in fig. 6 c below this list of specific ARGC item from other and the natural language fragment between them of PTR-DS and exemplarily presented to user, because this specific ARGC item is selected by user; As an alternative, this information can convey to him/her by voice mode.

The title of this list is identical with Fig. 6 b.But any Y here, namely BID-cr-C is divided into son row, and each sublist shows dis (y) or J (dis (y)).The entry of any son row like this on any such ARGC is capable indicates the latter whether to use the former.

Finally, notice that user can they pass through sound by means of only repetition, or by clicking them by figure, in any inquiry, select all items about them.Here these I/O details are not described in detail.

v.2invention/creative BID the design of-claimed invention, also known as BID-cr-C: if by means of BID-cr-C ^{iII.1-2, 9)} carry out the explanation of the term of the independent claims 1 and 11 of present patent application, namely the description of the TT.0 of their bottoms is analyzed according to them, their universal term then must be used to describe the element of these TT.0, i.e. the character of the set of the term use of these claims.This is applicable to independent claims 2 and 12 (more restriction be only their final provision) completely, although the term both them having to explicitly use these BID-cr-Cand thus also having to explicitly (and redundantly) defines their ordinary general sense, and these BID-cr-C are not ordinary completely: AD-TT.0 design, BID-TT.0 design, SoDIS (Y.0) design, SoJ (dis (y.0)) design, BID-TT.i design, SoDIS (Y.i) design, SoJ (dis (y.i)) design, BID-AC design, SoQCC (Y) design, SoJ (qcc (y)) design, SoARGC (T) design and SoAccess design.Except SoAccess design, the structure of (other 11) BID-cr-C is identical in all four claims.

Independent claims 22 also implicitly use all these BID-cr-C.

These BID-cr-C are creationary/invention (namely in technical ability or prior art not describe) and binary, and independent ^{iII.3.2, D2} obvious for poposc in IT system design.Other dependent claims use other BID-cr-C.

v.3-claimed invention indicates them to be tested by § § 112,102,101,103: if above example changes ^{4) h.} occur in advance, then these short chapters and sections are attended by PTR-DS, and it represents the complete analysis of the TT.0 of this patented claim thereupon.Note subsequently should replace it.

Therefore claim of the present invention to be indicated as by they tests under § 112, because their disclosure obviously also meets definition and authorizes requirement based on 12 BID-cr-C defined above uniquely.

Owing to not having the prior art be suitable for be known, therefore they are indicated as by they tests under § 112.

Due to the latter, all considered as a whole claimed invention has Q ^plcs=Q ^pmgpthe invention of>=12/creativeness height and being therefore indicated as is tested by its § 103.

All considered as a whole claimed invention is not by release patentability.Particularly they are not " abstract thought " uniquely, and the other reasons about patent disqualification property is inapplicable.

Obvious reason is, any one in them is tackled from physical medium reading, modified and write at physical medium at physical medium in most of mode, and therefore away from any concept of " abstract ".

In addition, all three claimed inventions also by recently suggestion about the functional test of claimed invention not being abstract thought uniquely: any one in them is by test, because reduce to it problem (as hereafter summed up) that will method, device caused can not to solve it be suggested to for solving by not using one in its 12 BID-cr-C, owing to reducing because of it, it can not ensure (in situation completely) answers inquiry about indispensable disabled item of information in time, PTR (being solved by claimed invention) can not be solved.

Therefore, any one in claimed invention is indicated as also is tested by its § 101.

Propose for being required that the PTR that the invention protected solves is summarized as follows: they should support to solve concrete PTR in the following way ^i., make IES ^i.(the latter uses the former PTR-DS ^i., the two is at Practical Condition ^i.lower work, also known as at document document.CT ^v.1 the background described ^i.middle work) user can in complete analysis and based on PTR ^cTmark generate PTR ^cT-DS, it comprises alltechnology and juristic fact, also known as TT.0 and given RS, the relation namely between each given background, such as legal system (in the U.S. such as 35 USC § § 112,102/103 and 101) and make IES can in this case immediatelydistinguish and answer about any such relation anyreasonable enquiry.

Thus, if when generating PTR ^cTduring-DS, only limitedly many subject content fact/relations only limitedly many different disclosures and about any one in them, legally decide they (see v.1) only limitedly the shortest many I.CT series connection all considered by user, then analyze be defined as complete.The scope of this definition hint claim of PTR is not easy to only comprise the algorithm/device performing complete analysis.Utilize all more than 12 BID-cr-C at least one times and perform or cannot be used up whole analysis but extend to and perform or use any algorithm/device (as just defined) of complete analysis to belong to their scope, have nothing to do with many BID-cr-C of the TT.0 how considering PTR.

Footnotes/endnotes

*) this young science of mathematical logic relate to various mathematics " modeling " and they based on axiom make it possible to proof/computational mathematics statement [" Computability and Logic ", Boolos/Burgess/Jeffrey, 2007, Cam.Univ.Press, " BBJ "].The axiom being called as such as hypothesis or supposition in the past represents the item of metaphysics/virtual power theory/senseless/the unknown.In Aristotle's epoch, even may at Ai Hena immediately for just having " mathematics/logical model ", no matter what is called as in its epoch, it understands these superorganic/imaginary items, usually them are not recognized like this, such as " natural number ", " distance ", " straight line ", " arc ", " circle ", " irrational number " etc.In several thousand, these models become comprise other superorganic/item fabricated, such as, " 0 ", "=", " π ", " i ", " e ", " sin ", " √ ", " ∫ " etc.Physics/mathematics/the logical model in last century has been taked more and in fact day by day superorganic and complicated item, such as " universal gravitation ", " quality ", " time ", " energy ", " set ", " algebraically ", " topology " etc., and identify that they are good scientific practices by their " axiomatization " now.

In history, model and their supposition/suppose are always for rationalization with analyze various following technology

" non-based on skill " field, i.e. " pure intelligence " class, also known as mathematics, such as (Euler) set grade, theory of probability etc., analysis logic (Fu Leige) etc., mathematical logic etc., modern age algebraically/geometry/topology etc.,

" or based on skill " field, for expand they " rationalization " part or realize that these are reliably evincible/computable, such as transportation technology, airmanship, Building technology, weapon technologies etc.

The model of all rear classes comprises up to now physicsaxiom (be called " physics rule " or " natural law ", comprise " standard physical is put into practice " of any kind etc.).Such as, II. the difference equation system in is to Architectural Construction skill modeling, any theory of elementary particles to the uncertainty relation modeling of the discrete energy level of Planck and Heisenberg, Tuo Lemi/Copernius/Einstein's to universe modeling, etc., any surgical practice through checking puts into practice modeling to sterilization, etc.To " any part of real world " modeling allegedly by " description logic " [DL, " The Description Logic Handbook ", Baader/Calvanese/McGuinness/Nardi/Patel-Schneider, 2.Ed., 2010, CUP] based on " design " ^{4): e.-g.} specific concept realize.

" FSTP Innovation Model " ^iII.4 different from rear model I, be namely last class, although it also makes a part rationalize based on the field of skill, even if (be not regarded as the field based on skill up to now, it is actually " innovation/patent " technology, because it is greatly technology ⁷⁾) part rationalize.It has only developed ZF and 2 new FOP, and secondary physics axiom that it retains " creative/innovation modeling ", namely tackles pure metaphysics/mathematics.When Leibnitz/newton/Kant/Fu Leige/Wei Tegensitan/einstein describes the implication of the fundamental terms/concept after this of " viewpoint " and " fact " in detail, their essence is distinguished [such as " Mathematik and Theoretische Physik II " in principle, Hellwig/Wegner, de Gruyter, 1993, page 1].Now they achieve the Supreme Judicial Court 4) mathematical modeling of the patent case of a..Such viewpoint is sightless, and rationality hypothesis does not have the fact when not creating its viewpoint, because it is by its relation ⁴⁾confirmed, quoted the design value of given design set also known as it ^iII.3/4 the truth set of its predicate, as sightless elementary particle is confirmed by its contrail in given fog chamber.

In other words, FSTP model up to now ^iII.4 unique: it is mathematically to the field based on skill, such as patent ruling in innovation modeling, but be in their physics under.It is pure intelligence that all its tends to rational metaphysics item, first about its of the apparent property of innovation/TT.0 (non-) the creative fact is determined, also have such as about its of (no) patentability the practical fact is determined.Although judgement that the creative fact is determined to see clearly based on eternal science/intelligence and the practical fact is determined based on Schopenhauerian and/or social authority, only uses logic to restrain both them.Thus, therefore it as having secondary physical essence, and be blank (novum) mathematically to based on the invention in the field of skill/innovation modeling ^*).The mathematical solution obtained by the FSTP model of the axiomatization being used in the invention/innovative problems based on the mathematical modeling in the field of skill does not need experimental verification, because its any DL/ mathematical model for the problem in this field is indispensable, the invention/innovation/TT.0 of the FSTP model of even now will tackle object problem continually.

The second feature of FSTP Innovation Model emphasizes linking between its metaphysics and rationality.Although refer to mathematics/DL model above, they all support based on the mathematical problem solving in the field of skill, but their target is greatly different from each other, they have common ground: they are all based on metaphysics/imaginary/senseless practical matter, being called design, is in fact their " axiom ".These make described superorganic item formalization, by they disguise as Mathematics structural.Therefore, they make these metaphysics practical matters " rationalization " in the field based on skill.That is, axiom always makes it possible to utilize metaphysical item, namely simply by they mathematical modelings.

Finally, on the characterization before two, the third feature of FSTP model highlights it and finds about " patented technology " the even potentiality of " innovation science ", indicated by the suffix " innovation " of its title.The rationalization that the usual DL model of the part in any specific field based on skill have ignored the increase of this part of this technology by innovation or the innovation of the solution for finding wherein new superorganic problem that will carry out, i.e. this field ^{5): c., iII.3.3} in before exist design ^{4): e./ f.} creationary/metaphysical amendment.When/find this based in the field of skill for further rational new method time, should be useless based on this " the in fact daily concern " modeling in the field of skill.

Except any common DL model, mathematics FSTP model ^iII.4 not for any its " technology " in the field based on skill of any real world ⁷⁾rationalization, but uniquely to pay close attention to " creativeness " of claiming implemented relative to its prior art by new technology in the former right of priority time, thus prior art then exist by means of only the creativeness of the prior art exceeded before it and technical ability.In other words, the basic concept in any tendency rationality field is paid close attention in the definition of FSTP model, and namely the unchangeability of any such field origin, as its knowledge evolution, namely gives up any other aspect of its field particular aspects completely.Therefore,

The foundation of its development DL, namely avoids in DL, run into mathematics/logic complexity [" Basic DL ", the DL Handbook, s.a.] in addition.But tool shape is the creationary PTR model of TT.0 relative to its prior art of PTR ^iII.4 any FSTP model mirror image is carried out to its TT.p particular technology, but uniquely about creativeness/innovative problems.And for mathematic(al) simplification

It even develops the branch of more " simply " of finite mathematics, its be and ancient but only recently being paid close attention to more widely, be called as about it (for sub-FOL now ⁷from constraint) " term rewritings " [" Term Rewriting and All That ", Baader/Nipkow, Cambridge University Press, " BN "] of problem, particularly " design and Boolean expression " rewriting ^iII.3 .For this purpose and simple language will be sub-ML and not describe in detail here.

And, from a lot of fields in meet do not like the creativeness of " repeating think deeply " different, " FSTP thinking " and innovate mathematical model ¹⁰⁾uniquely pay close attention to they creationary superorganic/fabricate/unreasonable item, but identify that they are whole.Be taken as the basis analyzing PTR problem, the still complete FSTP Innovation Model 10 of this inclination) by suitably and directly carrying out mirror image to its finiteness, ensure that law security.Therefore it makes " form of thinking of patent case " that can put into practice the Supreme Judicial Court immediately: make it possible to efficiently to find (superorganic/fabricate/unreasonable) all minimal set of creating of independent design, when starting to retrieve from relevant common skill and certain given prior art, they are indispensable for reaching TT.0 innovation in intelligence.This may be the basic problem of the principle bottom of the Supreme Judicial Court consideration PTR problem of All Countries.

In order to make it possible to determine these minimal set, the axiomatic basis of spread F STP model, has more two axioms than meeting to the classical mathematics axiom of prior art modeling ⁴⁾, they make it possible to all possible inventive measure modeling to these expansions carrying out relevant common skill and certain given prior art.These two axioms make it possible to all " the shortest creative path " of determining to cause this innovation/TT.0 from prior art RS, and this is the Supreme Judicial Court ⁴⁾recessive to require and reusable.They with the addition of the metaphysical item of the axiomatization being positioned at below physics to classical mathematics axiom, be namely still pure intelligence, i.e. mathematics.Thus FSTP Innovation Model extends pure mathematics, makes it can in technology ⁷⁾promethean any field, the mode of the unofficial practice of the ruling that science is evaluated for the law of their innovation patent with the Supreme Judicial Court measures creativeness.

1 this paper WO 2012/022612 A1 that can obtain at www.fstp-expert-system.com place provides the error-detecting redundancy of particularly FSTP test and illustrates for the deep of application of PTR law court case.Distinguish because law court lacks PTR problem/fallacy run in two sides, the Atlantic that analysis means causes will report in textbook.

2 E.W.Dijkstra [in " Teaching and Learning Formal Methods ", by Dean et al., 1996]: " so-called ' natural language ' is created for it object be used for is fabulous; such as impoliteness, joke, deception or love (and literary criticism theorist even can go content to it); but when the situation that the reply of free burial ground for the destitute undoubtedly of having to is very mixed; it is hopelessly not enough, and these situations inevitably appear at such as makes laws, arbitrates, in mathematics or programming behavior ".

3 Wei Tegensitan's is early stage about viewpoint relatively true 4) the theory of knowledge see clearly ([" Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus ", items 1-3], namely " for the rational high linguistic method " * will do not developed after this problem and he)) link, accreditation: determine relative to the fact, first place is, namely their content non-, represents also known as data ^{4) a.} : therefore he suppose, before people states the fact, he/her is necessary that the viewpoint with this fact (is stated with any expression ^{4) e.} ).Kant is recognized by following supposition and is arrived " with natural language thinking " state the fact " upwards linking " ²⁾this basis not enough " I advocates to be right at any special naturology, can find to the greatest extent real science many like this, because there is the mathematics found " [" Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science ", 1786].And before him, Leibnitz [1646-1716] has recognized that *), basic fact, i.e. " time " they are that physics is true, and therefore can not " link downwards " to pure intelligent mathematics (as newton [1643-1727] ^{*), Hellwig/Wegner}institute's false supposition).Leibnitz's suggestion one of some superorganic phenomenon being considered as physics by the time discretely, as einstein describes in detail in his relativity, relativity is considered to physical theory but not mathematical theory.Therefore, talk with Kant: the field based on skill of " the mathematics innovation science " of emerging in large numbers here is taken as the special theory of his natural theory, is not limited to " comprising " natural science applied " certain physics ", its theorem by him ^iII.3.2only depend on mathematics FSTP model, there is the pure intelligence axiom that two is extra ^{4) b., 10)} , and therefore wherein have found than more mathematics up to now, only know up to now " natural science of physically based deformation ".In other words, than the natural science that physically based deformation is set up ^*)in any one, the true science of more Kant can be found wherein.Therefore, the subclass " patented technology " of mathematics innovation science is because of its extremely many outmoded conventions program ⁷⁾and become a kind of technology, like being the first " technology of non-physically based deformation ", have than classics/Fundamentals of Mathematics that the technology of physically based deformation is more powerful.Therefore this mathematics innovation science is that clear and definite true science is (as Kant's finding ^{4) a., 9) 5.} ), and patented technology is the natural science applied technology based on New raxa like this, i.e. this mathematics innovation science.

44) a.to the Fundamentals of Law of the patent case mathematical modeling of the Supreme Judicial Court by inventing/patentability that TT.0 implements relative to given prior art RS indicate determine have mathematical rigor legally reliably.But this severity is never employed up to now for this purpose, because there is no available suitable mathematics.Subsequently ^iII.3 this is provided, except the ZF axiom of mathematics ^*)outside, start from seeing clearly of 2 Wei Tegensitan to be taken as 2 new maxims.Namely to the fact of given content ³⁾what exist sees clearly α), as the rational relation between these contents, namely there is no such fact, but uniquely exist (as relativity as the relation between content ³⁾in like that and experience background explanation, the argumentation of its later stage becomes the problem of himself ³⁾, similar to the important IT problem of " variable range "), as " character " of content; And true exist set up see clearly β), this relation namely created by people exists, need he/her before it exists by intelligence is createdits at least one viewpoint ³⁾come this character " designization ".In other words, true, also known as content relation, the creation also known as content character (at a time unknown) needs it can know the viewpoint of identification in the past, and it is by representing this character ^{1), 4) e.-g., iII.3.2, 9) 1.-3.} design by mathematics " modeling " ^*).These viewpoints are necessary can by claim construction identification simple and clear accordingly, their creativeness/independence ^{4) a.(i)} mathematically by their design ^{4) d.} modeling, and only these transfer (non-) patent qualification of reliably instruction invention to.

α is passed through in observation) and β) ^{4) b.} before maxim is carried out to creativeness/invention design, describe in detail and i) pass through claim construction ^{4) c.} identify them, and final iii) utilize their patent qualification to indicate ^{4) g.} ability, (1) and (2) first illustrates ii) design is as the background task of the apparent property designator of (non-) about invention.Due to ii), the U.S., Germany and the European Supreme Judicial Court start having to explicitly or implicitly use reasoning all problems i)-iii) and design.Therefore design is now patent case and by senior IT, particularly by KR to its mathematical modeling ^*)between link.

(1) the X jury judgement TT.0 of German federal law court BGH is non-obvious, because find that it needs inventor to perform more than 1 " independent intelligence measure ", condition is the retrieval of he TT.0 from given prior art.More accurately, with EPC and " problem-solving approach " thereof simultaneously, BGH emphasizes, from its 1999 its about indispensable property more than 24 cases bottoming SPANNSCHRAUBE judgement in, first TT.0 is defined as by its instructions (representing its inventor) open in any patent/claim interpretation, because only TT.0 makes it possible to implication (the i.e. semanteme of these terms determined in the simple sentence of claim ^{7) b.} ), as a long time ^{4) c.} by known to IT.Under this firm background, BGH continues and at its 2008 the concept of " number of intelligence measure " is having to explicitly confirmed in judgement (BGH X ZR 84/06), " independent together with mathematical rigor conduct here ^{7) c.} the number of viewpoint ".BGH is early stage repeatedly confirms these viewpoints, as indicated the unobviousness of TT.0 in its judgement.The concept that but in them, neither one can reach " number of separate point of view ": they all use other terms to represent the concept of the not too key for solving PTR problem, by talking about the actual result of viewpoint, such as state more than one " element change " or " change of their execution sequence ", but this does not really imply its general solution.

(2) circuit court of the U.S. (USSC) having to explicitly requires to check its " creativeness " quantity implemented for (non-) apparent property of TT.0 in its KSR in 2005 adjudicates, because relevant common (" poc ") technician must can not be regarded as robot, but also as common creative personnel (" posc ") [" Cases and Materials on Patent Law ", Adelman/Rader/Thomas, WEST, 2009, p.2009, p.320].In other words: USSC only TT.0 implement creativeness more than in the common creationary situation of posc personnel, think TT.0 relative to prior art be non-obvious (therefore refuse TT.0 by " only automatic " TSM test suffice to show that its unobviousness).This agrees to the above case of BGH completely: the reasonable tolerance namely also requiring the creative quantity implemented by TT.0 about common creationary this USSC statement, namely when retrieving it from RS, the inventor of the TT.0 creative quantity that indispensable ground must disclose in order to find this TT.0, thus this rationally tolerance should make it possible to determine in science creative quantity that TT.0 implements whether more than the common creativeness of posc personnel.As the number of the separate point of view of judgement prompting is the indispensable logic/plcs of any this creativeness tolerance that USSC requires ^iII.1 basis, the BILSKI/MAYO judgement selection patent qualification after it, i.e. practicality/pmgp ^{1), 4) e.-g., III.1} .

By its such as AMP to MYRIAD GENETICS (see ^{4) g.} ) and ULTRAMERCIAL to WILDTANGENT judgement confirm its MAYO to PROMETHEUS judgement in, USSC by statement " design of at least one invention " ^{4) d.-g., iII.3.2} the absolute demand implemented by the invention that patent is qualified is expanded and illustrates its " KSR thinking " on basis, it is not natural law design, and inquire " ... whether claim is added to qualified for enough < patents design > its statement of this natural law < being conceived to > the proves application natural law qualified process of patent with the process allowing it to describe ".

These terms state/set forth USSC again not only adheres to by invention/TT.0 in the identification than the more microsecond put into practice up to now ^{4) e.-g.} the quantity of the invention/inventive concept implemented, also adheres to quality/classification.This USSC hope (represents about the invention in design, first greatly affects 35 US § 112 ^{9) 5., 4) g. (2)-(5)} ) hint

This invention/TT.0 intelligence is resolved into form its its independently ^d2/N2 " creativeness/invention design " and

For any one in them ^{4) e.} implemented by this invention/TT.0 although it is mathematically provably, check that it is to the contribution of unobviousness realizing this invention/TT.0, because it is creationary/invention (35 US § 103) in science, although any such creativeness/invention design still can due to pmgp (35 US § 101) ^{9) 5., 4) e.-g.} and prove that patent is defective.

Expose " creativeness of inventor " when developing it by invention/TT.0 relative to the creativeness that its prior art RS implements, namely the inventor of TT.0 is in order to the separate point of view that finds TT.0 to create by retrieving from prior art RS number, for this creationary this reasoning, the Supreme Judicial Court has implied that " innovation rule " is new " natural law " ^iII.3.1 .When issuing when exemplary quoting in such as (1) and (2), it is immaterial, and their hint is not detailed: they still demonstrate above any suspection, when by determining that the creativeness/independently/invention implemented by it is conceived numberand when using it to check its (non-) apparent property as each designator uncontested for invention/TT.0, they believe the more rationality/reliability that can develop than present practice.In the U.S., to see clearly for this of (non-) apparent sex chromosome mosaicism because also require the creativeness/independently/invention design identified classification, namely by attempting determining their (non-) patent qualification simultaneously, and thicken, this is hereafter ^{4) f.} explanation.In Europe, about " technical " restriction of invention ⁷⁾only avoid and understand these problems.Moreover the concept of the term " design " of USSC causes many misunderstandings ^{4) d.} .In fact, the use of the IT implication of this term needs certain to clarify, and this is hereafter ^{4) c.-g., iII.3.2} in provide further.

For mentioned above by the Supreme Judicial Court conclude and new " the innovation rule " that define here: it is epistemological truth, as any other physical/chemical set up/... / medicine/economic/... rule is equally epistemological truth.Until Kant ³⁾, the mathematics implemented by it discloses its existence in innovation, and this is hereafter describing in detail ^iII.3.2 .Its characteristic: its checking does not need to be confirmed by Physical Experiment, because it is benefited from can pass through mathematics ^{n5) iii)} based on the axiom that it is understood completely ^{4) b., *)} clearly modeling.In other words, FSTP Innovation Model makes it possible to reasonably ^*)/ scientifically under than the less hypothesis needed for classical natural law, its key element is described for any innovation, because these always comprise physics statement and therefore also need Physical Experiment for confirming them.

Disclosed herein for generating PTR-DS for given PTR ^{i., iII.3.1, IV., V.} method/system be restrain in this new innovation ^iII.3.1 other application very different potentially whole series in, it is specifically and very recessive application.In other words, the method/system only via its to the service of PTR-DS (such as, by FSTP ¹⁾the K (PTR) for generating PTR by item provided ^{ii i.1} service) rule that uses this new, be therefore the application-specific of this new innovation rule.Do not use this new rule in addition.Except this application-specific of PTR-DS service, generating PTR-DS needs to perform this K (PTR) expression ^iII.3.1 some for the specific conversion of application, disclosed in IV. and V..

4) b.the creativeness of mathematics FSTP Innovation Model-TT.0, linking between prior art and case. in fact, FSTP Innovation Model ¹⁰⁾completely incoherent.Its sole purpose is by the usual ZF axiom to mathematics ^*)add the axiom α of 2 pure intelligence) and β) ^{4) a.} set up science severity, thus realize this mathematical rigor.Thus,

Axiom α) mean: for PTR, the element X.i.n of its TT.i is content, by predicate x.i.n, their character that 0≤i≤I, 1≤n≤N describes, quotes the design value of PTR ^{6) a., iII.3.2} , and relation between them by they x.i.n, 0≤i≤I with equity x.0.n, the ANC contextual definition of 1≤n≤N.(being used for becoming independent element concept to use these compound concept separatings relative to the prior art RS of PTR by PTR-PS) background of these ANC relations/deliberate restriction is identical for all PTR: background/intention classification " Patent Law accepts semantic plcs " and " the practicality pmgp that patent monoply is authorized ¹⁾", the apparent property of the former reply (non-), the latter's reply (non-) patent qualification.

Axiom β) mean: individual any one design in cr-C of new creativeness/invention of q being created q-AC/mod (q-CC) by the inventor of TT.0 needs him/her first to create each q separate point of view, and they create these cr-C.Any such cr-C represents by invention/innovation/TT.0 for the partial solution claiming total solution that the problem that will be solved by doc.0 provides.Thus mathematically exactly: AC is revised by q-CC, it is the sequence of q " 1 design creates 1-CC ", q=0,1,2,, each 1-CC create at least one cr-C (by by least one unfeasible design from the ps+pa of PTR (therefore at AC ^{9) 3.} 's ^{6), a.} x.i.n be called pseudo-in) be transformed into creativeness/invention TT.0 and conceive), make AC/mod (q-CC) antstT.0 ^{iII.2, iII.3.2} .

Patent Law practitioner does not need to be concerned about all these, and he can use this new technology and be indifferent to its scientific basic ^{4) d.} .The brain that there are us can be surprised many examples of this phenomenon ^*).Such as, by bike.Although by illustrating that when rolling straight forward the task of Coriolis force wherein makes to become by bike possible reason and really makes us dull, we can both correct doing (even if not understanding these power is what) under cortex like this.Other examples walk upright or high-speed driving.Another closely similar example of this phenomenon is the pilot of aircraft performs instrument landing ability when inclement weather makes its natural locate failure.This is equally applicable to such as in IES, use PTR-DS by " FSTP approval " user: after the short-term training to IES, he/her will work to the proper use of of PTR-DS under cortex, not need the basis of the mathematically non-trivial understanding the senior IT technology of bottom from him/her ^{*)., 3). iII.3.2} .The known academic example of this phenomenon is that many theoretical physicists use even mathematics by ignoring its severity found in feasible place, and Hilbert satirizes road, but envies equally " physics is too difficult for physicist ".

Known by development foundation science in 150 years in the past, at development FSTP Innovation Model ¹⁰⁾basic time to apply this mathematical rigor be worth.Such as, in the early-stage development of elementary particle physics, initial energy/Schrodinger's operator be lose time and cause confusion, as now for occurring in the apparent property test in patent case.Hilbert is noticed, this confusion is caused by the simplicity of the definition of the scope lacked this operator, establish the mathematics simplicity (" Hilbert space ") of its scope definition, it is only admitted rational " eigenvalue " of atomic model, and this failure that therefore terminated.FSTP model should terminate about the apparent property of instruction test and the failure of patent qualification by the mathematically simple and clear definition of its basis and scope equally, make its rational " semantic/creationary/plcs and practical/pmgp height value " only admitting PTR problem and they are whole, as required in the Supreme Judicial Court (see (i) and (ii)).

Last comment about the common point between development innovation theory and the innovation science presented here: they are different on basis.Such as, although himself is limited to exactly " prerequisite that posc confirms " by FSTP technology ^{iII.3.1/2, 5), 6), 7)} , based on this " microtechnology " 7) and innovation is dangerous, development innovation theoretical analysis " grand economy " and therefore only analyze can not the environment of complete definition, also uses slightly different concepts (such as, " invention ", " prior art ").And: from many (usually) <100 separate point of view, also known as invention/inventive concept decomposition technique ^{7) a.} innovation, and for these development innovation ^{9) 4.} , whether the discrete separate point of view of unclear hypothesis is completely significant.But FSTP Innovation Model can by its deterministic dependence and threshold value bunch are replaced with problematic relationship and threshold value bunch and priori identification these be placed under it sees clearly.

4) c.about patent/claim interpretation, namely decompose the national framework of the support provided about the design by TT.0. in fact, FSTP technology and " design decompose " thereof can with all they cooperate. in sciencethe accuracy that these frameworks are being sought for FSTP technology is still in problematic state of development.Greatest problem in their " common " problems of following discussion.Hereafter ^{4) d.-g.} solve the problem of the patentability inspection based on it.

In patent/claim interpretation, there is probabilistic field known widely, in fact which content about its invention/TT.0 is protected by national patent method.This usually in the levels of accuracy making it be described by predicate immediately, can obtain from the term of its claim and the disclosure among doc.0 thereof forcibly.In fact, patent/claim interpretation, also known as " claim construction " ^{4) g.(e)} present case, by FSTP term: unofficial for its technical foundation fact to be transformed into its formal such fact ^iII.1 , sometimes conceptually cause confusion, but not confusion, usually conceptually and more internationalization ground causes confusion.

Accumulation about this debatable situation of claim construction can be contained from outstanding textbook and sees, issue [" Cases and Materials on Patent Law ", Adelman/Rader/Thomas, WEST, 2009, Ch.9], [" Patent Law and Policy:Cases and Materials ", Merges/Duffy, LexisNexis, 2007, Ch.8A/B], [" The Modern Law of Patents ", Fysh/Roughton/Johnson/Cook, LexisNexis, 2010].Paragraph below only refer to some the in fact important such differences in the patent/claim interpretation of two sides, the Atlantic, in the U.S., changes between examination and infringement.Although PTR-PS can identify these differences by parametrization and consider them, their impact is strongly depend on the term of claim ^{4) g.(1)} .

I () is for claim construction, 35 USC § 112 and United States Patent (USP) case allow its instructions to the implication of possibility the most widely of its term, namely its term concepts is limited, if this term is by incantation, such as " by means of " refer to structure in instructions and algorithm.Otherwise the explanation of this claim must ignore this restriction (unless instructions clearly emphasizes that this restriction is owing to particular term uncommon in its patent), or is not? ^{4) g.(6)} .

(ii) European terms of claim construction avoids device and adds function (means-plus-function) legal means.On the contrary, the case of European Patent Convention (EPC) and BGH and EPO needs to determine its TT.0 according to instructions/accompanying drawing and claim ^{4) a.(1)} (if the inventor of TT.0 is with disclosed in the mode that can realize) using as the technical matters being proposed to solve by patent solution and decompose the concept obfuscation of its term subsequently, make them single ^{5) a.} do not conflict with their implication in TT.0 (EPC Arts 36 & 69), and these conflicts are permissible in the United States Patent (USP) of claim with conflict.

These conceptual frameworks are checking (non-) of claim apparent property/patent qualification ^{4) g.(1-8), 9) 5.} in be conclusive.

Further, EPO limits patent and only has single independent solution/device claim, namely ignores inventor and is conducive to simplifying ^{5) a.} needs.United states patent law is not understood the restriction of this strict patent and is greatly limited inventor for realizing the creativeness of larger management simplification, and regulation is for the large benefit of inventor, particularly by new AIA (as described in detail in addition).But unfortunate in U.S.'s claim interpretation (recessive with mistake) is supposed to be that the claim parlance of such natural language is usually assumed to be and is self-explanatory or uses law " device adds function " means, make it possible to use the function from the instructions of this patent to limit, if wherein quote the structure of " MoT type ".But the method has implied serious deficiency.It has ignored:

At the latest from set up compiler in early days known should from illustrate hypothesis be absurd (except ordinary " invention/innovation/TT.0 ") and therefore confer instructions always logically necessity, and

The trickle degree of knowledge of the invention in all advanced techniques is more much higher than front information-technology age, always implies that they are based on technology ⁷⁾but (pure intelligence) functional mode of non-physical, cause these structural fuzzy.

Except these are discontented, the patent system of All Countries is at least approved of, and patent should by posc personnel or at least pos ^{4) a.(2)} (be not layman! ) explain.Although some law courts may ignore this international prevailing view completely and accidentally when without any interpretation technique term (sometimes 1) hint technology and/or law vicious behaviour voluntarily when reason).

Last: for classical claim construction now ^{4) g. (4)}all Countries framework, even if inevitably ^{7) c.} resolve into independent design, another problem retains, and probably becomes more and more important along with the increase of the precision of invention/TT.0 becomes ^{4) g.(3) III.} .There is the judgement at least one times of BGH.Here, when the special tool shape of this TT.0 is exactly applied for a patent and because being obviously rejected, invention/TT.0 is awarded patent.If/examination/mandate is being invented/write to FSTP technology ^{4) f.} in time, is employed, then this patent will show that its TT.0 comprises described apparent particular case, because the FSTP test of such as this TT.0 identifies the posc+pa relative to TT.0 for it ^iII.3.2 's allcreative path.Therefore it will not be authorized to, except the apparent particular case of non-excluded.

4) d.design different concepts and patent authority and patent practitioner to their current use.When its (non-) qualification that brings into operation for invention/TT.0, namely when each (non-) apparent property checks, the difficulty of classical patent/claim interpretation that only uses of firm general introduction significantly increases, if do not have to resolve into its different classes of inventive concept extraly exactly ^{4) e.-g.} .But, thus term " inventive concept " and " separate point of view " cause problem.The concept of " design " of USSC is in close proximity to " viewpoint " ^{4) b.} concept, but it is for by utilizing different term ^{iII.3.2, d1/D2, n1/2, 10)} identify them to distinguish the two.In order to simplify, and because USSC uses it, next only will describe the concept of " design " in detail, namely when " viewpoint " that describe BGH in detail ^{4) a.} concept time, similar consideration will be suitable for.

But term " design " also leads to misunderstanding unfortunately, the concise and to the point description as many (semantic with the practicality) implication that can provide from wikipedia for it can be seen.And be definitely difficult to confidence: even if up to the present this term is about relevant IT scientific domain (such as system, Study on Semantic, knowledge engineering, DL ^*)) most important implication classification only mention in the past, as a class trouble question, although hundreds of IT textbooks and doctor work and thousands of professor employ this genus many decades.That is, exist

Term design exceedes the broad sense of the growth of thousands of years, comprises the scope of different taste, their " towards grand problems " all, the large problem of reply such as " spirit, God, love, truth, drama, loyalty, faith, philosophy, General Principle " and

The specific meanings of term design is concluded by IT.It also comprises the scope of different taste, but their " towards micro-problems " all, as realized needed for accurate description, are called " formal specification " in IT, also known as " mathematical model ", there is the character of the functional and non-functional of any complicated IT system, its module and theirs is mutual.First such IT system is large database concept system, wherein this concept of term design first in the seventies in early days for they modelings, subsequently also from above concept widely, but progressively learn it to have to by refinement to realize the lesson of the accurate description of the character of required classification, and it moves to another IT research field from this field subsequently, such as AI, semantic net, KR, DL ^*), (the latter almost can not be represented as " step " character of the functional and non-functional increased progressively of the module that the system module for indicating them is exactly such relative to other! ), referred to herein as " invention/inventive concept ".

Although use the IT concept of above specific design mainly with the understanding of defect thinking deeply/talk about complication system to people, and other functions how to use from their ²⁾wherein they are polymerized, not having experience to make us dull is usually the people of the learning process of not enough natural language, use such or such history (namely unclear) concept of design without any exception, although quietly suppose that it is good definition and is understood by them.

For the recent judgement of USSC ^{4) a., e.-g.} the different concepts of crucial term " design " causes being discontented with between patent authority (USSC and CAFC, USPTO, CIPO) and other Patent Laws expert.Reason is the statement of USSC, namely for by the qualified invention/TT.0 involving natural law or abstract thought of patent, should have invention design (BILSKI/MAYO, i.e. § 101) of enough patentabilities, it is in advance fully creationary (KSR and § 103) on the whole ^{4) e.-g.} .

But these are discontented with and misread based on basis: they always

Use " grand problem " concept of above " design ", therefore it also is used in the guidance of PCT and WIPO/EPO/ etc., and the cryptic concept of " unity of invention " (contrast " the creationary measuring unit implemented by invention "! ), and

Ignore " micro-problem " IT concept that USSC uses above " design ", these hereafter describe in detail ^{4) e.-g., iII.3.2.v} .Thus USSC, by " 1 invention design " being taken as " the creationary measuring unit that invention is implemented ", practicality exceeds the implication of the IT class of this term, as BGH ^{4) a.-c.} .In IT, use the number of design on the surface never like this.

Current many patent business practitioners (inventor, patent attorney, patent examiner, IPR keeper, method official rank) must not feel well: they do not pay, do not have qualification and so there is no interest to pay close attention to the reason of these difficulties in patent ruling, that namely pays close attention to our all inconvenience sees clearly the deficiency also having them, as long as only use natural language, wherein need to analyze accurately ²⁾.The constitution mission of any Supreme Judicial Court is different.This is that the latter not only makes great efforts to add more rationality in its practical operation ^*), and be in fact more responsible for the reason identifying direction, the ruling of its Patent needs this rationality and this rationality should in future in technology ⁷⁾details develops, here: utilize the potentiality of senior IT (instruct, reach PCT, set up when the GRAHAM of EPO, USSC adjudicates and exist not yet writing early stage WIPO)

FSTP technology reflects the prompting of these Supreme Judicial Courts ^{4) a.} .Which provide " creativeness/invention design " (representing " separate point of view ") ¹⁰⁾the axiomatic semantics of implication, as make the fact in patent case/examination determine in fact based on ^{4) g.} institute of Science needs.

4) e.to invent/TT.0 resolve into its different classes of independent invention design.USSC's is for increasing the rationality in patent analyses about the quantitative of invention/TT.0 and the prompting of decomposing qualitatively ^*)large measure, it utilizes Study of Knowledge Representation.It advocates that § § 101/102/103/112 and case thereof provide the enough intelligence of the required law mark about invention/TT.0 from the design of different classes of invention, namely with the instruction of the invention/TT.0 of (non-) patent qualification about its (non-) apparent property can be obtained far and away based on these Fundamentals of Law and be presented, thus also be realized the uncontested objectivity about patent in the business scope of emerging in large numbers.

But unclear is up to now that i) this quantitatively and qualitatively decomposes concrete how it feels and ii) how in fact to realize it.This changes: paragraph i below) and ii) be that two principles are answered and (their details are described below ^iII.3.2 ).Alleged by them, namely all USCC require, it is only the training of the more intelligence when obtaining these designators about claim, mean that initial is clearly must be obligato with complete claim construction, as determining the reliable basis of the fact of its each classification implemented without dispute.In other words, the decomposition of its invention/TT.0 is necessary

I) identify all " inventing by the compound of element ", it forms this compound invention/TT.0 completely, i.e. all elements and their " polymerization, also known as recombination property " ^iII.1 , any polymerization/recombination property is by quoting randomdesign ^{iII.1, 9) 1.-3.} value " polymerization/compound predicate by element " describe, also known as modeling, and subsequently

Ii) such predicate of any one in any element is refined into each link (if in any case it is not still BID) of its BID predicate, any " element " is the keyword of the term of claim.

I) be only another term of claim construction about classics, but there is the accuracy of increase, because the character of element is translated into natural language predicate.With ii) supplement claim construction i) being translated into refinement, represent the decomposition of compound invention/TT.0, make it possible to the inventive concept identifying KSR/BGH judgement ^{4) a.} .

Any BID design/predicate 9) 1.-2. indicates invention/creationary item, because they are all identified " independently " ^{d2-5/ n2-5} .Except this law quality, any BID design/predicate provides further law to indicate ^{4) g.} , because they all have one in two classifications: the unobviousness being got rid of priori or increase invention/innovation/TT.0 by law/§ 101 from patent qualification potentially.If the BID design discussed represents natural law (MAYO) or abstract thought (BILSKI), then the former is suitable for; Here be called subsequently " the qualified npe of non-patent ".If its all do not represent the two one of, then the latter be suitable for, be called subsequently here " the qualified pe of patent " ^{4) g.} .Distinguish that this extra law quality is conceived than AD for BID design ^{7) b., 4) g.} simply too much.

4) f.only the reliable inspection realized about (non-) apparent property and (non-) patent qualification is decomposed in design.

PTR, ii for given) determine allits BID conceives, and namely its TT.0 is relative to all invention/inventive concept of its prior art RS, and is pe/npe designator with their individuality ^{4) e.} irrelevant.Owing to only there is such BID design of Limited Number ^{9) e.} (each disclosed by finite d oc.0), therefore allthat define total invention/creationary quantity of TT.0.For this finite set of BID design, obviously can check which in them is because of its npe quality ^{4) g.} and be in danger.

First determine allits npe conceives ^{4) e.} impossible, because this is unlimited and be therefore infinite set.

Finally, as " classics " patent/claim interpretation, also known as claim construction ^{4) g.} attempt, determine that these two quality conceived are difficulties for many PTR or even may not in a single step ^{7) c., 4) e.-g.} .

Two alternative schemes of the latter forbid the prompting responding USSC, and as it is expected, this is above ^{4) e.} general introduction in principle and hereafter ^{4) g.} illustrated by example.In other words, decomposed relative to the design of its prior art RS by TT.0, smash the PTR knowledge that (non-) apparent property/(the non-patent qualification) about its TT.0 checks.

Thus i)/ii) claim interpretation/structure ^{4) e., g.} (by FSTP technology) is unique answer of pointing out for this USSC.

middle summary ^{4) a.-f.} : USSC prompting is smashed K (PTR) by the design decomposition of its TT.0 and (is recently adjudicated by its MAYO and send, but previous judgement by itself KSR and BILSKI implies, first checks (non-) of TT.0 apparent property, latter two checks pe/npe) initial by its KSR judgement instruction, wherein it requires that (non-) of TT.0 apparent property test also should check that whether it is only based on common technical ability and creationary quantity (giving the credit to relevant common skill and creationary personnel posc) first.In other words: USSC clearly states, if claim experiences it based on the claim construction conceived ^{4) g.} , only implement the following design of posc number, it is .) creationary/invention or :) not to abstract thought or natural law modeling ^{4) g.} , then this claim is considered as indicating not patentability by it.In other words, thus USSC makes 35 USC § § 112,102/3, and 101 is consistent, as discussed below ^{4) g., V.} .

4) g.in (non-) apparent property and the inspection of (non-) patent qualification, utilize the invention of decomposition to conceive.USSC conceives at IT at first ^{4) d.} place runs into many restrictions of pointing out about its (recessiveness), more specifically: conceived by compound IT ^{4) d.} resolve into (independently ^{4) e.} ) invention/inventive concept, for checking (non-) of invention/innovation/TT.0 apparent property and (non-) patent qualification ^{4) e.} .But it is very rational example and therefore by popular technically that independent design is resolved in IT design and these designs by compound in many science.And the application of being somebody's turn to do (USSC concludes) example is good for performing described inspection operation, and it obtains United States Patent (USP) case and develops for next step.

This illustrates by means of 8 motif documents hereinafter: MEMORANDUM " 2012 Interim Procedure for Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Process Claims Involving Laws of the Nature " (Jul.3 of USPTO, 2012) and 7 CAFC adjudicate " CLS BANK... is to ALICE " (on July 9th, 2012), " BANCORP is to SUN LIFE " (on July 26th, 2012), " AMP is to MYRIAD GENETICS " (on August 16th, 2012), " RETRACTABLE TECH is to BECTON... " (on October 31st, 2011), " NOAH SYSTEMS is to INTUIT " (on April 9th, 2012), " ULTRAMERCIAL is to WILDTANGENT " (on September 15th, 2011), " PHILLIPS is to AWH " (on July 12nd, 2005).Each around this new example in these 8 documents, compound design is decomposed and is met § § 101, necessity when 102/103 in test patent/claim.They have put into practice it all day by day, but clearly do not distinguish yet and state it.

These starting points illustrated are that the example that this new USSC concludes makes it possible to solve the problem about PTR, namely determine its (no) patentability indicated because following factor causes for its invention/TT.0 ^{4) e., f.} the quality and quantity of the fact:

I) relative to (non-) of its pa RS apparent property, based on invention/inventive concept that it is implemented relative to RS ^{4) a., e., f.} number, and

Ii) (non-) patent qualification, based on expression abstract thought or natural law ^{4) a.e., f.} the number of such design.

These explanations are also devoted to example new about this in fact (with the above detailed description about it ^{4) a.-f.} ) term/conceptual issues, do not emphasize in those references or only clearly mention (although being the reason of their problem), and directly entering their key component presented.More than ^{4) e., f.} after effort, it is enough for carrying out like this.

Two Main Conclusions are obtained in advance from these 5 documents content that free burial ground for the destitute is informed undoubtedly:

I) conclusion about temporary condition is: a large amount of concept that all 5 documents present about following problem is uncertain, i.e. the detailed how it feels of the judgement of KSR, BILSKI, particularly MAYO.In other words, the MEMO of USPTO indirectly and the judgement of 4 CAFC very directly admit, they have the problem about these the new guides provided by USSC.

This Liang Ge mechanism does not all read these USSC and adjudicates up to now, because they will seek development to about § § 112,103 (comprising 102) and 101 the higher levels of understanding of patent ruling problem, thus do not pretend to understand this notional higher levels of understanding to these problems more than required.In other words, it feels to have a responsibility for requiring to realize it in United States Patent (USP) case, as all knowledge that it is tackled at it ²⁾what realized in field is such.Thus uncontested first step developing it is in the framework that patent case is set up for a long time, it is right to improve extrawhat understanding is the fact be actually, and the understanding of this improvement can be based on, when their respective instruction abilities for the moment of these four § § of application, and first how to determine that these are true.

On the contrary, this Liang Ge mechanism greatly these USSC of overinterprete adjudicates: in other words, as this complete and get out the higher levels of understanding that uses in allegedly guided to.Therefore, they can not apply it, because its reason existed is only that the basis of SC is seen clearly, the better understanding that namely this fact is determined is for realizing about the indispensable prerequisite (respectively the Patent Application of PTO before) of the consistent of these 4 § § with stable patent case.

Above ^{4) d.-f.} see clearly the understanding representing this improvement determined relative to prior art and relevant common skill and the creationary fact about invention/TT.0.With IT (AI, NL, KR...) and mathematics/logic/theory of knowledge ^*)unanimously eliminate the alternative to it in the framework of set up Patent Law/case, i.e. rationality.Thus the fact of this improvement is determined to be placed in danger by not having defective patent, although can, to CIP application to decide this point, be only in case.

II) long-term conclusion is: all 5 documents instructions need the term improving claim, and the subject matter of an invention content which reflects their bottoms is more detailed and trickle than what put into practice up to now at these 4 § §.In other words, as above ^{4) e., f.} , in principleinvention/inventive concept modeling/description that any invention is implemented by it.The reason that this example changes only is that these claim parlance determine the required transparency by being considered by USPTO/CAFC/USSC to provide about the apparent property of law (non-) of its invention of evaluation and/or the definitely indispensable fact without doubt of (non-) patent qualification.Short-term restriction can occur, long-term rationality is by popular.

(1) about " MEMO " of USPTO: present the impact of MAYO judgement on the patent/claim examination of USPTO with simple language, it is by some extremely lively example supports.Therefore be extremely helpful in the following way, be not as above in actual ^{4) e., f.} pass on like that abstractively and need than they common claim parlance simpler and clearer like that up to now, needed for MAYO judgement ^{4) d.} .But what it only outlines technically ^{7) a.} form the simplicity that this is extra, hereafter in principle, which needs, but before judgement, do not understand any one in them.Therefore, paragraph a)-c) tackle content that MEMO clearly states (more than thus implicitly confirming ^{4) e., f.} explanation about MAYO judgement), and d)-e) tackle its content described in detail, particularly about the shortcoming of its other trickle example, comprise the important way emphasized to meet this USSC and require, MEMO only mentions this point in the past.

First " review of the Sect.III.A. of (a) MEMO wholeinstructions and claim are to determine what has been invented ... " emphasize to consider patented claim allhow disclosure relates to for understanding claim and limits invention.This exactly/mathematically ^{*) 2), III.3.2, definition 3-5/ note 3-5}, more than confirming all sidedly to be concluded by USSC ^{4) e.} decompose and need.There is not the logic alternative for meeting this USSC requirement.

B (), in Sect.III.A., second segment, first starts from that " claim analysis starts from identifyand assess the restriction of each claim... ", namely perform your claim construction as usual.This instruction means: identify the keyword of claim, they are claimed as its element, and each in them is evaluated as claim restriction, and that namely determines with item every other disclosed in patent more accurately is all disclosed in it ^{5) b.} relation: determine all character disclosed in it.But under the sifting of the Sect III.D./E. of USPTO-MEMO, the accurate meaning of this instruction is: " if you complete classical claim construction, then starting the element character resolved into by the recombination property disclosed in element disclosed in them " ^{4) e.} .It is impossible for decomposing the element representing the keyword of claim.

C the sentence of () (b) continues " ... and consider subsequently overall claim", this is reemphasized by the sentence subsequently of MEMO.This instruction is crucial.Its implication is not only " correctly and intactly to be performed (b), namely considers/determine allelement allcharacter ", be only the prompting of (b) subsequently, but also " there is not the further conclusion of the available fact implemented about the term by claim subsequently " in hint.Generate and there is further such conclusion, namely obtain such conclusion from " considering overall claim ", beyond rationality (also see (e)); But must use early, for represent can not be only isolated consider element and their character.

The advantage tool of this simplification of USPTO-MEMO is had its price:

D () at first sight its key seeming have ignored USSC states, the single inventive concept of the invention namely beyond " abstract thought " and " natural law " ^{4) a.} , particularly only common creationary design (as add KSR ^{4) a.} ), not enough for its patentability.Close to observing, it transfers MEMO to and is not intended to ignore the term " design " of USSC implication: its repeatedly instruction carefully retrieve except use natural law measure except invention in " measure " that involve (see Sect III.D./E., the detailed description of the actual example particularly in Sect IV.A./B./E., explains in (e)).In other words, MEMO suggestion is retrieved such " additional measures " of whatsoever character in unrestricted region, and these character from (b) are quoted by term/concept " design " by USSC.Therefore MEMO avoids to be easy to controversial because it is current ^{4) d.} and only use term " design ", instead of its concept.

But, in order to the problem of the lastrow of avoiding USSC to adjudicate in future, by identifying each " invention design " of inventing for this purpose, as explicitly called in its MAYO judgement, do not mention this IT term completely ^{4) d.} " design " be do not have helpful: this not necessarily suspects the transparency realizing claim parlance that USSC advises so that determine the mode of the fact needed for any inspection of the apparent property of its (non-) of inventing or (non-) patent qualification.

(e) this seem constriction MAYO adjudicate by identifying its " invention design " requirement to the more transparencys in claim parlance of inventing wherein, only with the addition of more measure wherein.In other words, if MEMO does not provide term " feature " in Sect.IV.D., then not necessarily the implication of the term " invention design " of this USSC of constriction only to represent measure ^{4) d.} .In fact, the discussion in the MEMO of its actual example is not mentioned that the invention design of USSC can also refer to express strong and is added in claim parlance, i.e. element character, and the non-functional element restriction namely on its usual recombination property, as above ^{4) d.} illustrate.The common IT of MAYO judgement and term " invention design " ^{4) d.} use, such as, at DL ^*)in use, all its implication is not only limitted to functional issues, thus causes it to be debatable.

When the restriction not to the additional measures in claim parlance, namely additional features (by invention/inventive concept modeling) wherein is also allowed, it is incomplete for causing the detailed description of last 2 pages of MEMO: the novelty of anti-IgM XYZ can comprise, except its element functional character as the non-novelty of medical medicine, i), extra below 6 novel non-functional character: its manufacture is ii) full synthesis, only take iii up to now) production time, iv) water, v) energy, vi) waste discharge limit resource requirement 10%, and there is vii) the permanent life-span.In other words, the recombination property of XYZ comprises 7 independently non-elemental matter as element design.Thus the creationary quantity that XYZ (relative to associative skills and prior art) implements is 6, because invention design i) neither novelty neither patent qualified, but other 6 inventions are conceived 6 of XYZ novel creationary element character modelings, although consider isolatedly, they all need not be novel, but up to now with design combination i) ^{6) c., 7) b} in do not exist, and to set up this combination be marvellous, because its creation is expensive.Therefore, the creativeness/invention implemented by TT.0 equals 6, represents the accurate meaning of the phrase " ... overall claim " of MEMO alleged by (c).That is, not the used fuzzy refined language had.

In last paragraph, therefore the evaluation about its claim 1 and 2 of MEMO is only correct when patent applicant/owner presents its invention as described in 11 of MEMO pages.That is: this evaluation will be wrong potentially, if he/her by use common " by means of " subordinate clause writes this claim parlance, and instructions in fact provides each structure disclosures or instructions of illustrating for realizing above 6 combinations in fact clearly emphasizes that these 6 inventions designs are combined/aggregate into compound inventive concept.Therefore set up as follows: the problem that the creationary outstanding quantity whether invention implements not to be absorbed in natural law and/or abstract thought " represents in fact " its (application) patent, be namely not only the problem of " word is write ".

The summary of USPTO-MEMO, more accurately: at the technique influence of MAYO judgement to the claim parlance in future ^{7) a.} explanation in, the perfect guide namely in order to make this transition document become auditor ^{4) h.,} only need extra clarification (e), by " inventive concept " of USSC ^{4) d.} concept it is expanded.The detailed clarification (e) carried out should comprise according to V. and below to CAFC's CLS & BANCORP adjudicate note become obvious.

(2) about " the CLS case of CAFC": probabilistic degree of challenge even between best U.S. judge, that proposed by its KSR/BILSKI/MAYO case about USSC is referred in the CLS of CAFC judgement to a great extent.The main judgement of the same court of CAFC seems in fact substantially to adjudicate consistent with these USSC, although its major part discussion is at least fuzzy, except the part that it is more last, even here its belong to/concept also lacks the viewpoint of USSC.

Generally, prevailing view confirms, uniquely by means of the recombination property of the element of claim, the impact that these USSC adjudicate is attempted to join in the framework of the claim construction only put into practice up to now, namely, as clearly pointed out now in MAYO judgement, when extraly the recombination property of element not being resolved into their inventive concept (two early stage USSC judgements have only implicitly pointed out this point), (as the useful and fully in the past) demonstration being necessary to require hyper expanded to set up and their term, covered before these USSC judgement is not really dealt with problems for making them.Opposing views have expressed being discontented with this deficiency, but not making it reach this design of suggestion yet decomposes ^{4) e.} result, but inquired the major issue that prevailing view obviously implies.By attempting answering them, prevailing view confirms that it is about the uncertainty of USSC to the challenge that United States Patent (USP) system proposes, until its constitution responsibility, with the system (see conclusion I) by providing most probable patent to it, namely by making it utilize the remarkable break-throughs realized in senior IT, the innovation of America's economy is encouraged.Therefore USSC requires to continue United States Patent (USP) case further and it is as one man developed into than being adjudicated the higher quality level set up by GRAHAM ^{4) e.} , its new technology fact is not enough simultaneously ^{2), 4) g.i)} , for representing its huge economic innovation further by the safety of America ground that is supported in of patent case to them.In CLS judgement, the dialogue about this target between these two kinds of suggestions is close in fact, is inevitably that design above decomposes 4) e. (see i)-ii) and BANCORP hereafter adjudicates).

Thus be clear that: in the knowledge engineering not having specific Patent Law/case to drive ^{*), 4) e.-f., iII.3.} when, this requirement meeting USSC proposition is impossible.Patent ruling can self be carried out, and does not have law court self to carry out.

After the discussion of the MEMO of the USPTO in (1), at A)-C) and i)-ii) in more briefly CLS judgement is annotated, how far to march forward and for passing on the clarification needed for reality (coming from this specific and very self-evident branch of knowledge engineering) the party for representing CAFC, patent ruling for the patentability for invention/TT.0 provides reliable basis, for checking the mode of the improvement of USSC.

A)-C) first outline the background of concept shortcoming that CLS mentioned above adjudicates:

A) its most serious deficiency is not pass through before the patent qualification checking invention/TT.0 its any classification ^{4) e.-g. (1)} the sum of element creativeness/invention designdetermine its creativeness/invention as a whole, namely do not defer to USSC about first identify invention invention design ^{4) a.} kSR judgement.

B) therefore its in precocity ^{7) b.} trial in fail in their " practicality ", clarify compound design, namely they are " abstract " or " entering natural law ", the two invention/creativeness that to be USSC identify in itself BILSKI and MAYO adjudicates ^{4) a.-f.} indispensable quality beyond quality, and

C) " as a whole " is not had to understand some " independently " invention/inventive concept of invention/TT.0 ^{4) a.(1) 7) c.} needs, for the law inspection of these 4 § § can be passed through: there is no the independence of its element inventive concept, and when not having the integrality about the description of their whole invention/TT.0, any such law inspection is logically defective ^{iII.3.2, 7) c.} .

Item i)-ii) be adjudicate from CLS, particularly from its initial/back-page short annotation to concept and term, thus exemplarily present and avoid/apply as " design is decomposed " of FSTP technology of USSC in order to present patent/claim interpretation and conclude, the requirement of the above general introduction of USSC is suspected/met to hint.That is, these two 2 the many other problemses that have ignored prevailing view and opposing views and slightly refer to, if need to clarify elsewhere.

I) (p.3 opposing views are correctly noticed, starting two sections) USSC needs " invention design " for considering its patent qualification for 101 times at § for the claim of invention/TT.0, and advocates that prevailing view " fails to defer to the instruction of circuit court ".Prevailing view attempts fighting back (p.20 this criticism in the following way, ftn.2), notice " ... be that prevailing view is done when examining the language of claim self exactly ... ", and distinguish " ... other elements or element combinations are sometimes referred to as ' invention design ' ... "Although " invention design " this concept of prevailing view is in the accurate concept about it of its ftn 2 closely USSC ^{4) d.} but, when referring to " ... basic truth or without essential idea, not restriction ... " time, its main text (p.21,1.4-7) is got back to fuzzy on the whole, the concept of namely very different terms " design " ^{4) d.} .In other words, prevailing view does not make the content invalid of opposing views, although it wants/attempt here to use to apply shown in the design (as ii) of USSC seemingly)

Ii) opposing views are noticed (p.3, final stage) further, prevailing view inadequately hyper expanded compound design " computing machine realization " as invention, if only quote it.Prevailing view is noticed (p.26, second segment) when it is resisted and opposes viewpoint, there are at least 7 good potentially reasons, is considered as invention for this compound being conceived " computing machine realization ".Thus it implicitly admits still undeniablely .) this design is actually compound design, and :) in this 7 elements design, some designs seemingly invention.In other words, avoided arguing (ii ' in the BANCORP annotation of the CAFC that also vide infra) by a priori decomposing the design of this compound).

In other words, i)-ii) show that CLS judgement is conceptually but not truly, substantially consistent with the requirement of USSC.

(3) about " the BANCORP case of CAFC": adjudicate similar to CLS, it is consistent that BANCORP judgement can be regarded as substantially adjudicating with the KSR/BILSKI/MAYO of USSC the requirement implied, but conceptive it is equally chaotic with CLS.In other words, although it expects this associating seemingly, but still really do not provide the consciousness set up and improve about the concept of United States Patent (USP) case, the KSR/BILSKI/MAYO of the judgement of USSC implies as required capable (comprising the recent dies non that the CAFC below two adjudicates).Still clearly do not confirm that the needs waiting and be used for the fact in § 101 case and determine are decomposed in design, although it is implicitly in fact also recognized as shown in these needs (as II.)).Therefore, which provide from the checking of these USSC judgement to the correctness of the conclusions that the requirement of the true problem identificatioin with § § 101,102/103 and 112 obtains.

Therefore, due to the consistance of all foregoings, in BANCORP judgement and at I.) in about in its follow-up annotation not from CAFC or the new content from FSTP technology.But " general introduction (tour d'horizon) " and the understanding of increase to it of the excitement of the division of the problem that this enforcement of the judgment is discussed, namely for the problem of the role of the computer program in United States Patent (USP) invention.Thus, not only object is annotated for by I. to this judgement) in the content of decomposing about design rephrase the statement, and again for the reason of instruction.Be somebody's turn to do " general introduction " provides the further continuation of problem clarification in FSTP technology side, namely practicality patent problem that USC 35 § 101 that whether really contributes to also tackling the U.S. compiles and help are decomposed in design has much (as the practicality run in where district's patent system in office, not considering here).This statement implies: determine for the fact, make it support the design of the application of § § 102/103 to decompose to be indispensable epistemological/logic/needs of mathematics, be almost ordinary on the whole, as the basis that rationality is seen clearly.Thus for all elements creativeness/invention design of invention initial selection and identify also it is true that, subsequently based on such practicality for they patent assessment of eligibility they, no longer belong to the fact to determine, but belong to the legal decision carried out about them, until these practicality.On this scientific fact of all these element invention/inventive concept is determined, obtain inference of law is AI now, the field of the Major Mathematics Study on Semantic such as NL, KR/KE, DL, but not the field that design is decomposed, mathematics innovation theory (with FSTP technology) is paid close attention to design and is decomposed.Thus the field of these two mathematical information science is complementary.

Uncontested science more than mathematical semantics research and development natural language level is seen clearly, and it is from the latter and mainly for more and more stronger design, simultaneously

Also start from the mathematics innovation theory of natural language level current mainly pay close attention to development natural language below horizontal see clearly excavations (term/concept that element creativeness/invention conceives indicates as compound design is resolved into) without dispute science and the understanding of science having provided the improvement of this indispensable design up to now (as IT ^{4) d.} middle use), and based on it from KR ^iII.3.2. obtain basis.

Subsequently for the patent qualification in invention ^{4) f.} law inspection in apply § § 112/102/103 and finally apply 101, I.)-III.) USSC is become more concrete (and fact of the reality of the CAFC of the hint of the use of decomposing based on its design is determined) the hope that the fact in clarification BANCORP/CLS judgement is determined.

I.) determine that invention/creativeness is true, in BANCORP/CLS case, namely at least determine the invention/inventive concept of the USSC of these true representatives, be subject to comment (2) A at CLS annotation)-C) in the puzzlement of same disadvantages summarized.The classical fact determine these are not enough, as still part practice in BANCORP/CLS case, annotated briefly at following clause A ')-E ') on, be still devoted to than (2) A)-C) in certain more details:

A ') do not pre-determine as needed for application § § 102/103 allcreativeness potentially/invention design, but

B ') (priori is doomed failure to determine the patent qualification of unique compound design (being claimed invention " computing machine realization " again) of actual identification useless ^{7) b.} ) attempt,

Namely still not about meeting the recognizable needs of USSC according to its KSR/BILSKI/MAYO judgement and pointing out from it ^{4) a.} detailed description by using senior IT ^{4) e.-f.} the breakthrough that (following summary) obtains in the mode that law is consistent, namely about:

C ') by A ') in all compounds designs of determining resolve into element creativeness/invention design (about § § 102/103),

D ') determine which design in these element creativeness/invention design is patent qualified (about § § 101/112), and

E ') filtering is independently conceived from the design of remaining element creativeness/invention maximum set ^iII.3.2. .

The meticulousr fact that this ratio performs up to now determines C ')-E ') only defined to be minimum legally by USSC.Unanimously therewith have more symbolistic facts analyzing and also can use ^iII.1. , skipped here.

Two exemplary i of quoting ' from below BANCORP judgement) and ii ') show both hard: it is adjudicated consistent (by i) and ii) for the key issue being in danger and CLS and solves), and still reflected CAFC increase to the understanding (among II.s describe) of USSC about the above prompting of this two problems.

I ') concept of " invention design " of BANCORP finally becomes the concrete concept of USSC ^{4) e.} (p.23, I.9: " ... the additional features < retained in claim also known as: design >." and p.25, I.2: " ... very concrete application for [invention] is conceived "), at CAFC from very different and widely term " design " ^{4) d.} concept start (p.19, I.28: " ... ' cover ' claim of abstract design... " p.20, I.9: " ' computing machine is used in other abstract design' ... ").

The initial implication quoting the term design of informing CAFA of first band underscore is very different from its USSC implication, and claim is conceived by invention accordingly ^{4) a} (be made up of its parts as fence, p.23, I.9 and p.25, I.2) for formation.This hint: its concept as the design of the concept of USSC is still got rid of in the initial statement of CAFC " ... claim covers abstract design " here, otherwise it declares " ... fence covers its parts ".

And the initial implication quoting the term " design " showing this CAFC of a rear band underscore is not only different, and wider: it allows to use computing machine wherein.But this adjudicating as its MAYO for USSC ^{4) a.} the concept of " the invention design " of middle definition is complete irreconcilable thought: the feature (as CAFC admits, see above) becoming claim, namely becomes without time and the restriction without region ^iII.3.2 , but be action consuming time or the action based on space body.

Ii ') but BANCORP judgement also again only implicitly admit still undeniablely .) its i ') and the design of claimed invention, namely its " computing machine realization " be actually compound design (p.19, I.27-29: " ... add ' area of computer aided ' restriction simply ..., it is not more ... " p.23, I.12-19: " ... < quotes wherein 9 features and conceives > as potential creativeness/invention element ... "), :) in practicality, < decomposes actual these 9 elements design > identified by design is not all invention/creationary ^{4) e.-f.} .At II.) in describe that this that realized by CAFC is important to be seen clearly in detail.

II.) CAFC increased distinguishes the needs that design is decomposed, as USSC suggestion, by reaffirming unique compound design " computing machine realization " (see i ') and ii ' of claim)), implicitly admitted in its BANCORP adjudicates.These reaffirm clearly to indicate CAFC to determine checking this claim legally § § 102/103 and 101/112 time, be i.e. not easy to " former state " during the patentability of each invention claimed true ^{7) c.} use this design.

Therefore, CAFC (almost) as the fact determine required by means of design decompose continue, although do not understand it, and so there is no call like this.Such as, in BANCORP judgement, CAFC

Emphasize that (p.11, I.24-29), as rule, § § 112 and 102/103 checks and should check at § 101 ^{9) 5.} carry out before,

Independent above design is decomposed and (p.23, I.12-19) becomes the element design of 9 creationary/inventions potentially, even

Notice that any one is associative skills design potentially ^{5) d., 6) c.} , i.e. the uncommon combination of creativeness/invention design.

Therefore BANCORP judgement can be regarded as the requirement that half meets USSC ^{9) 5.4) a.} .

Scientific fact is determined and assesses: more than ^{4) a.-g.} outline, the separatrix between current " known " and " the unknown " will be plotted, also study for relevant cut edge IT, not only for Patent Law/case practitioner, for creation and the assessment of innovation/invention/TT.0, i.e. eternal rationality ^{*), 3)}between assessment (be called plcs ^iII.1 ), and change society/political practicality (pmgp ^iII.1 ) always indispensable and be finally conclusive ^{9) 5.} .

III.) about the self-examination for BANCORP and CLS judgement of design disaggregate approach.As BGH with the KSR of USSC judgement imply (and from the representation of knowledge ^iII.3.2 viewpoint visible), for claim and the invention relative to posc+pa thereof, by invention implement and be the subject content of claim theyany of creativeness/invention fact determines (needing both this in any application of each legal framework (in 35 USC § § 112 and 102/103)), must based on their compound design ^{4) e.} independence design decompose.BILSKI and MAYO as USSC adjudicates (and can see equally from the viewpoint of KR) of implying further, and the creativeness/invention fact identified so also should be for checking legally for 101 times at § ^{4) f.} basis both this.Any like this 101 analyses are analyzed based on former 102/130, and it transfers to analyze based on former 112.In other words, the fact of 3/4 independent object is used for according to these 3/4 § §, it is logically incorrect for following following, for PTR, their 3/4 inspection can perform independently, this is common logic fault, and its agreement causes ubiquitous and all categories inconsistent (element as null set has all character, can imagine at any time).

Once achieve ^{4) d., iII.3.2} as clearly used the clear understanding of the concept " design " of (and definitely inevitably as becoming first step accurately in most of senior IT) in MAYO judgement, statement just now can be distinguished ^{4) e.} represent and never suspect basic principle in all regions patent system.But it is usually ignored by their law court/authority's judgement.Not because observe its too dull (in fact usually not needing), but how to determine to realize the reliable fact towards the visual angle of conceiving by means of this, or it can realize completely because they do not understand.This understanding has been alone the evolution of the higher level of patent case, but still do not comprise and further reach the science KR determined about juristic fact and see clearly, and this below ^iII.3 in present.

Just now the summary part stated, in other words, logic-based (i.e. plcs ^iII.1. , there is different law tastes potentially ^iII.2. ) and independently conceive decomposition ^iII.3. this of creativeness/invention design determine for any case study, namely performing for it any object be used for, science is indispensable.Therefore its make to determine to invent relative to posc+pa creationary/invention, also known as the height Q of semanteme ^plcscheck for § § 102/103, also can determine its practicality height Q ^pmgpcheck for its § 101 on the former.Again, this law § § 101/102/103 that should not be misinterpreted as prediction law court adjudicates, even adjudicate about the § 112 of its claim parlance.But, independent design decompose for discussed invention achieve USPTO and its all legal decision of method chief minister should based on the uncontested of all facts determine.

(4) about " the AMP case of CAFC": all annotations about above CLS and the BANCORP judgement of CAFC are also adjudicated for this nearest AMP and are set up.Three part differences in opinion of the latter not only (again) provide about Patents case for the good overview checking modern invention at § for 101 times, be " gene invention " here.But their effort also confirms uncertainty and the clarifying process of above-identified, about what suggestion for identifying its patent qualification of the fact in this specific topic domain of instruction.Thus set up as follows: although any human genome patent problem causes the politics/question of constitution on basis immediately, may all current technology/economy/social fields emerged in large numbers but this is equally applicable to, only not too obvious, such as nanometer technology, energy technologies, green technology, health approach etc.On the one hand; their innovation and useful potentiality need by patent protection; for obtaining by the economic opportunity extensively disclosed; but on the other hand; they also become more and more in the mind of the growth part of society " being difficult to process "; because than obviously occurring by any way, they become more and more to threaten potentially further destroys All Around The World and be in not reversible mode now, thus even gets rid of the counterattack to them by Patent Law.Therefore, § 101 is exactly debatable law from it, because comprised challenge more or less, usedly up to now to have than it, current becoming rapidly has more fundamental importance.But in order to more sifting/reliability/rationality, make it possible to be separated the invention wanted from undesired invention, the fact about them is determined must be significantly improved, as required in USSC.Close to observing, consider this undeniable development, § § 112 and 102/103 also rethought carefully by these needs.

Therefore, USSC is predictable about the end result of the effort of this problem ^{4) g.(5)} : the USSC of KSR/BILSKI/MAYO judgement is about to prove early or late to become the pusher enabling CSFC develop the United States Patent (USP) case founded like this, and described patent case is applicable to the megatrend of these society in leading epoch.The scientific system that this inevitable hint darkly development has been summarized above ^{4) e.-f.} level and correspondingly develop the term of Patent right requirement, to reach more transparent and therefore more at large to clarify the level conformed to of the present invention and the relation of the case developed up to now, the latter clearly retains the foundation structure be absolutely correct now.

As USSC up judgement recessive instruction, continuation is being separated its creativeness that patent is qualified undoubtedly/invention design and those designs that patent is qualified potentially higher than the degree put into practice up to now is adhered in patent (application).The senior IT (system etc.) of reply Similar Problems also teach that can by utilizing their respective designs ^{4) e.-f.} mathematically to they modelings, clearly to realize " separation of concerns " with the mode of system.

United States citizen is well-known to abide by cardinal rule, coming difficulty is considered as the challenge utilizing them, at the visual angle, below that the AMP of CAFC adjudicates, be considered as both instructions, attempt understanding the following compromise increased progressively between the two and start, on the one hand, CAFC mainly state orders about, on the other hand, USSC mainly megatrend orders about, and the two mechanism obeys their different responsibilities for U.S. federal constitution.In other words, single short the quoting from AMP suggestion is below enough to this (recessiveness) differentiation showing United States Patent (USP) case, and the extra clarification not understanding bottom design via hint is carried out.

45th page the 1st: " DNA of isolation ... be ' self-support ' ' part ' of larger ' natural DNA molecular ' ".This sentence determines that the present invention not only tackles polymerization design ' natural DNA molecular ', and this section of remainder reemphasizes this point.In fact, in order to correct understanding subject matter of an invention content, independent disclosed creativeness/invention (BID) design ' isolation DNA ', ' self-support ' of 3 binary are clearly resolved in the design of this compound by this, ' larger ... part ', their link combination is a part for this compound design.Claim 1,2,5 (p.8-11) discloses it and is made up of creativeness/invention that number is larger, such as the length of specific ' coding about BRCA1 polypeptide ', specific ' nucleotide sequence ', ' at least 15 nucleosides '.But only 1 is BID design, and the law transparency is not considered in their claim distribution.

This is the surprising evidence of the indispensable property that the BID performing used any compound design in claim parlance decomposes, and this decomposition is only partly performed by MYRIAD claim.The advantage of realization like this is, by being separated the qualified invention/inventive concept of non-patent potentially like this, can identify/count invention/creative BID design that patent is qualified.Their number informs law court, whether " ... claim conceives its statement of > to this natural law < add enoughthe qualified design of < patent ^{4) d.} > is recognized as the qualified process of patent of application natural law with the process allowing it to describe ", MAYO ^{4) a.} (2).Any MYRIAD claim can to its npe potentially ^{4) e.} the pe of whole series is added in inventive concept ^{4) e.} inventive concept.

On the whole, the advance that this USSC of United States Patent (USP) case triggers is determined that its direction is pointed to and encourage and protect the ability of the useful innovation in the future of all categories, not only in American society and for American society, but also social for most of other countries.

It is impossible for only further carrying out jural detailed description based on design decomposition to this true defining method by means of CLS, BANCORP and AMP judgement, because they uniquely pay close attention to § § 101,102/103.For this purpose, the application of the method must represent in § 112 situation, and next this carry out in the RETRACTABLE TECHS of CAFC is to BECTON judgement.Fortunately, this facts have proved, the KSR/BILSKI/MAYO according to USSC adjudicates, and there is not in future the extra law transparency requirement that patent will meet, and is only indispensable to its application.

Chapters and sections V. provides the blueprint of this structure transparent legally of the instructions/claim parlance of patent.

(5) about " RETRACTABLE TECH case " (on October 31st, 2011) of CAFC: really surprisingly, eventually through this judgement, § 112 is also under sifting.The content of discussion in its § § 102/103 and 101 tests subsequently is responsible in the application of § 112 pairs of patent/claims after all.It is clear that § 112 at the latest from CAFC's PHILIPS to AWH judgement be debatable law.To explain about § 112 and the complications put into practice finally reach terminal: be clear that till now, this widely § 112 explain and be not provided for setting up thereon for as one man applying § 103 (as come to an end in KSR) and § 101 (as come to an end in BILSKI/MAYO, tomorrow is AMP such as) ^{4) a.} the basis of even framework: this § 112 explains the patent case inevitably producing a large amount of conflict, the law that namely can not put up with uncertainty/unpredictability.

The discussion of CAFC application § § 103 and 101 above, namely describes § § 103/101 and checks ^{4) a.-f.} the IT/KR problem of bottom, shows to lack PHILIPS judgement ⁽⁸⁾and the severity that " R-TECH " of nearer CAFC adjudicates.This is owing to attempting, based on until when the claim interpretation/structure of the classics about § 112 of popular carries out logical argumentation, trusting the use that compound is conceived.This trust is not usually decided, therefore the polymerization carefully do not admitted/use design wherein brings chaotic problem.In other words: due to compound design ^{7) c.} fuzzy essence, " isolation gene " design in such as AMP case or " being correlated with " design in MAYO case, they usually support such as to be conducive to the patent qualification of invention/claim and the demonstration for its patent qualification in insurmountable mode.These insurmountable conflict character of the compound design that the claim parlance of patent uses are its designs from " more added elements " ^{9) 1.-2.} be polymerized the inevitable result of this fact, some of them design is that patent is qualified, and other is not.The sole mode of therefore freeing is the key element design of these compounds being resolved into they, and it clearly belongs to a classification or other classifications.This is by resolving into their BID design by them ^iII.3.2D.3 realize.

Decompose this debatable compound design and also contribute to clarification; the qualified design of patent " integration " in what degree becomes claimed invention or is only (see such as MAYO about its immaterial/artificial filler; p.10, BILSKI is quoted: " ... add unconspicuous solution after behavior ").In other words; design decomposition usually contributes to distinguishing the claimed patent of allegedly invention/claim that patent is qualified, and whether qualified feature is actually the data of the latter, because decompose the trickleer granularity priori strengthening that the design discussed uses concept resolution.In other words, the existence improving the close interrelations distinguishing that the BID of so isolation conceives between (in compound design) is decomposed in design, (no) of improving the further restriction distinguished between its element portions paid close attention to as magnifier or microscope exists, and namely limits further (nothing) of their relation.Although in the world of classical technology, the phenomenon of the latter is obvious in the world of the technology of emerging in large numbers, the Mixed Circumscription of claim comprises some compositions (nothing) restriction, each restriction is essence for invention, although not they are allly all repeated by claim parlance prosaically, this phenomenon is generally accepted up to now not yet.Here, because be ordinary for posc and composition that is the therefrom Mixed Circumscription of abridged claim parlance (nothing) restriction, be usually regarded as not existing.In the R-TECH case of CAFC, present suggestion is again clearly criticized and is somebody's turn to do " double standards " phenomenon, although avoid this pungency term, as (implicitly the presenting this criticism in all more than 4 cases discussed) next summarized.

This first time of CAFC in this case has been very crucial statement (composition (nothing) about the Mixed Circumscription ignoring claim parlance limits) in opening a court session, continue, in other words its second time open a court session in the judgement in its on July 8th, 2011, the judgement in its October 31 in 2011: in the opening and its closed statement of opposing views, clearly write, if do not had " background needs ", namely require if not patent specification, the implication of the term (being term " body " here) of claim shouldn't change (here: restricted), as only may for the viewpoint of KR.Thus it requires and EPC ^{4) c.ii)} equally clearly patent/claim, also known as § 112 interpretative rule (getting rid of the conflict between two kinds of explanations).

As in CLS/BANCORP/AMP case above, compound design (being " body ") used by their independent claims term has also been aroused in the debate about ' 224 and ' 077 patent here here.And again, opposing views clearly distinguish that this design is compound design, independently polymerization is conceived potentially from one group of at least 6 binary, the judgement in above-mentioned July is referred to, the 3rd page of final stage (instructions of patent discloses the independence design of the further binary of the potential polymerization of conceiving about this compound) by opposing views.The task of instructions in structure claim is reaffirmed to the opposing views of the judgement in the above October of CAFC, confirm the debate of the implication about term " body " just mentioned and add the similar debate of conceiving " baffle " about compound, because its BID conceives " realizing deflection ", be almost completely neglected also known as " angled " and be not therefore imported into claim.In other words, although two opposing views perform the polymerization of these compounds design, they all refrain from declares that this polymerization is for until the claim construction of § 112 provides the indispensable behavior of firm base.

The effort that these § 112 of roundup instruct: have nothing to do with any reasoning of the patent case along the Supreme Judicial Court, as (and whether should respect the political issue of the judgement about claim construction of district court away from CAFC) of putting into practice above, there is the basic principle of mathematics/IT checking, for each system of reasoning trustworthily, it is current is ignored by all cases about claim component completely, i.e. § 112.These principles are:

Independent design is aggregated into compound design can make them be fallibility in many ways, such as, make them be dependent or proactive ^{9) 5.} .

(such as dependent or proactive about fallibility design ^{9) 5.} ) statement (as in claim construction now, howsoever give careful consideration) may be poisoning, namely twist/inaccurate/conflict/illogical, as exemplary overview above.

In other words, there is not patent case and become consistent, namely avoid these to twist/inaccurate/conflict/illogical/too complicated statement, namely adjudicate, and avoid these law courts current to carry out the faint chance of adjudicating, as long as ruling is based on fallibility (ERROR_PRONE) design legally ^{4) e.-f., iII.3.2, 6) and-7), 9) 5.} , tolerance § 112 explains, and therefore tolerates claim construction.And this explains for § § 102/103 and 101 and also sets up.Namely, in order to realize consistent and therefore predictable patent case based on these 4 § §, law court does not have other suggestions, but claim parlance is constrained to unique design using legally not fallibility ^{9) 5.} .Compound design is resolved into " pure " design by this hint accordingly in advance.Even if be difficult to be set up by each Supreme Judicial Court in NPS consistent with predictable judgement, but at least this is possible.

(6) about " the NOAH case " of CAFC(on April 9th, 2012): this case provides the good real example of the necessity of " (CCD) is decomposed in the compound design " technology when testing " § 112 determinacy " of claim because otherwise claim construction may easily conflict with instructions.Its suggestion presents two aspects convincingly,

I this CCD technology to be applied to initial the compound solution design added at device in the claim parlance of function clause by () CAFC success ^{iII.3.2, (5)} " providing the access to described file ... make ... can perform ... " but do not probe into the clearness created so completely, namely be different from and keep it during claim construction, halfway is forgotten and is returned and reuses the design of this compound solution again, which results in " disclosure true " statement of vacation below ^{iII.3.2, (8), 9) 5.} , and

(ii) " § 112 is opaque " term of claim, it causes the statement of the disclosure fact to this mistake, because it is by using the compound de-C of this fallibility, also known as function ⁽⁸⁾fail clearly to imply the cr-C implemented by claim/invention reality, although inventor in time disclose in detail these cr-C in the description, also known as function (but again, not point to § subscriber line test legally, and therefore not only ignored by the suggestion in Section B., and seem even to be ignored by the apologist of patent).

for (i): CAFC strives for, by the CCD suggestion of the MAYO judgement of the USSC tested about claim § 101, being also applied to the § subscriber line test of NOAH claim here.In suggestion is discussed, therefore CAFC must state first " disclosure is true " ⁽⁸⁾, namely " this case involves the device+function restriction about two distinct functional parts.' access device ' performs .) access to file is provided ... :) make ... can perform ... function.Therefore, really described in existence twofunction, namely (1) provides the access to file; with(2) ... make it possible to perform the operation described.Therefore any algorithm must solve two [independently but link] aspects of this functional language " (the 19th page of final stage is until 20 pages .) :), [...] and emphasized).

The compound solution design/functional interpretation correct according to this, it is true that CAFC correctly obtains the second disclosure, write .) be disclosed also known as (1) (therefore fix district court about .) also known as the vacation of (1) disclosure affirmation " ... instructions is open describe disclosed in the algorithm how to perform of function ", 19th page, interlude).

For these two statements adopt simpler and clearer CCD term, CAFC have issued two correct disclosure facts: namely

The above compound solution design of claim comprises two independently de-C, and referred to herein as " access " de-C and " behavior that realizes performs " de-C, (it is semantic that the title of the two presents the unit separating design ^{iII.3.2D2-D4/N2-N4, V., 9) 5.} , their accurate semantical definition is based on their the respective cr-C made it possible in prospectus), and

Access de-C is open, also evaluated legally in the description, and the disclosure content fact is by § subscriber line test.

CAFC turns to the behavior that realizes to perform and separates and conceives and state that instructions does not disclose the disclosure fact of the vacation of this solution design subsequently.In " without de/cr-C " language of not too simple and clear suggestion, this error in substantia is designated as " ... we infer instructions ... the not open algorithm for ' behavior that realizes performs ' " (the 26th page of interlude).Otherwise be genuine.Fig. 1 to 4 clearly show that " algorithm for practical function performs " that above CAFC identifies is by they square all below square 32, namely each 110 and their descriptions in the description open.Algorithm about the function realized does not need to be disclosed, because they are not all by patent.In other words, this summary of chapters and sections B. is the disclosure affirmation (conflicting with two of the A. above correct disclosure facts) of mistake.

Note, once distinguish the disclosure affirmation of this vacation, if this second separates design, also known as the algorithm of function by § 112 test, then the major part in A. and B. in the 18-28 page of suggestion and all C. go out of use.This will be determined by law court, but not by FSTP technology, namely its each CCD technology is determined, but here obviously very likely.

for (ii): as just illustrated, function/solutions design 9 that the behavior that realizes that the design of compound solution above of the CAFC in the chapters and sections A. of its suggestion is decomposed performs) algorithm is 5. illustrated the square of the above-identified of Fig. 1 to 4 of book and description is in the description open in detail: because particular case occurs, this function/solution conceives " charging and/or transfer of financial resources behavior perform enable" in the description by open carefully, for each operation like this controlled by invention, no matter what it is (restriction of the requirement that each side of only assembling by the application of invention in transaction is known, as instructions introductory song provides).

But, about claim for ... device clause in the design of compound solution chapters and sections B. is supposed term " realize behavior perform " can mean " making it possible to realize the charging of the behavior and/or the semanteme of transfer of financial resources ", obtain accordingly, instructions is had to the semanteme of the open behavior.Show that this is false above.And state i)-iv), namely i) instructions " ... not open how to System Programming realizing ' typing, delete, look back, adjustment and process Data Data ' " (the 21st page of centre of suggestion), ii) " therefore the process flow diagram of Fig. 3 can not be provided for the algorithm of ' practical function execution ' " (the 23rd page of bottom), iii) " ... central authorities are not described in instructions or Framework computing is confidential be programmed to allow to process data " (the 24th page end 2 sections), iv) summary (from the 26th page) of chapters and sections B. cited above, all these confirm suggestion and do not allow legally get back to use compound de-C due to it and add the restriction of the explanation of term " behavior that realizes performs ".

Twisting of this claim is avoided, and makes suggestion strictly meet its initial compound de-C/ Function Decomposition, will notice its second function subsequently, realize behavior n-back test also known as its second element de-C, has nothing to do also known as element de-C with the first function ^{iII.3.2, D2/N2} , or better: condition is that " device for accessing " and " device for enable " clause is replaced to " device for complex function " clause of claim by priori.

(7) about " ULTRAMERCIAL " (on September 15th, 2011) of CAFC: the at first sight judgement of the subject content of the patent of CAFC § 101 couples of Ultramercial, adjudicate to adjourn and return to be rethought it may is surprised by CAFC by USSC according to MAYO § 101: in fact, the subject content of the judgement both this disconnects.Although all propose identical absolute underlying issue both this, MAYO judgement clearly ^{4) a.(2)} propose, ULTRAMERCIAL implicitly proposes (the 14th page, last 14 row of text), that is: " implementing how much creativeness/invention by invention is that patent is qualified for making it, and how to measure/to state this quantity of creativeness/invention? " ^{4) a.} .

As it is from KSR and by this footnote ⁴⁾the pursuit of the USSC indicated by route of the patent judgement of annotation is by realizing answering the predictability increasing United States Patent (USP) with the binding of these most basic problems and decide, namely shared with CAFC pursuit.The simplification of this case is convenient to greatly clarify these problems, as next shown.

Novel and non-obvious and clear and definite claim/invention PTR ^{9) 5.} , namely tested by § § 102/103/112, but but may be subject to making it be that patent is qualified ⁽⁸⁾degree on to lack originality/the puzzlement of invention.Common practise defines following situation, is being explained at its " the most widely " by claim ^iII.2 (be all { de/cr-Cs} iII.3.2D2/N2set, each de/cr-Cs} forms invention) its invention/inventive measure all of comprising, also known as cr-C and de-C ^{9) 1.} after resolving into the de/cr-C of certain KR, all cr-C are at the right of priority date quilt of invention expection ^iII.2 (comprising the execution sequence of the applicable claim of these cr-C).

In mathematical term/concept, these claimed inventions are called as " potentially idempotent ", because according to prior art document, the creativeness/invention of all its element cr-C can be zero.In other words, its element cd-C is " plcs power ", only when some known prior art files are not considered ^{iII.2, 5) c., 6) c., 7)} , invent and highly increase relative to the plcs of prior art.

In other words: novel can be non-obvious with the invention/claim determined, because do not have 2 (maximum 2 ^iII.2 ) set of prior art document is known, its AC ^iII.2 expection claimed invention.But it may have the character of potential idempotent, be (plcs) true content, and be therefore indicated as potentially that patent is qualified ⁽⁸⁾, this will be determined by law court.For this reason; if such as there is the set of only 4 prior art documents of the cr-C of AC expection claimed invention; if or there is the execution sequence being only not suitable for claim in 1 step; or etc., then law court will consider " being easy to creativeness/invention " combination of plcs idempotent cr-C.In other words, there is a large amount of alternatives considered by law court, particularly an invention/inventive measure, also known as one of classification that de/cr-C sets up due to 3 USSC/CAFC of these subject contents (" natural law ", " spontaneous phenomenon ", " abstract thought ") but patent is qualified when.

Claimed invention accreditation is meaned statement technology for potential idempotent ⁷⁾true and preferably indicate law court to its law assessment.In other words, this accreditation is not still statement of law.This must be sent by law court.

If such as considered by secondary; if or each number of creativeness/invention measure be large or their combination unusual, then decide that this fact of unobviousness instruction surpasses this fact of potential idempotent, potential idempotent invention existence; it should be subject to patent protection, and this is technology ⁷⁾true law assessment.

" potential idempotent " patent qualification should exempt the term/concept gap enclosing and exist in the inherent patent ruling of world wide.The explanation restriction of the 4th § 101 except three restrictions that USSC sets up now can be regarded as, or be considered as the explanation restriction of § 103, or the other part in absolute decree § 103.In the theory of knowledge, the release of " potential idempotent " patent qualification should belong to pmgp ^iII.1 , namely belong to § 101, and do not belong to plcs ^iII.1 , because it is the latter ¹⁾upper foundation, that is, be syntax ground/(therefore mathematically can obtain clearly semantically ^{*), 3)}) practical appraisal result.But the system of 35 USC forces potential idempotent patentability to be exempted and enters § 103, because it does not represent another the whole classification (test according to § 101 and determine) of the subject content will exempting patent qualification, but it represents that just having another " ... the condition of this title and needs " to be approved by § 101 does not belong to its scope, and in fact this can carry out in the claimed invention of any classification of subject content, namely occur respectively (comprising set up exempt classification, wherein only add the another aspect of not patentability, as carried out in BILSKI and MAYO).

CAFC is unique U.S. authority that this (quantitative/qualitatively) newly of the setting patent qualification instruction of legislator and below USSC is measured.Thus, ULTRAMERCIAL judgement is returned CAFC and is used for rethinking it according to MAYO judgement by USSC, is that USSC invites CAFC to compile the step as a result of its answer for above underlying issue, makes it meet MAYO judgement.Thus USSC also outlined this conform to hint what ^{4) a.(2)} .Namely CAFC works as leading decision in order to what maintain its claimed invention about Ultramercial patent; identifying having to wherein " design of at least one invention " implemented by invention, making this set indicate enough invention/creativeness " ... the process described to allow it is approved for the qualified process of patent " (MAYO ^{4) a.(2)} ), be about to { the excess of export of cr-C} having to identify Ultramercial.Note, the claimed invention of Ultramercial does not comprise the design of belonged in 3 classifications set up of the qualified subject content of patent.

Therefore CAFC may be direct to reworking of ULTRAMERCIAL; because this aspect can implicitly be got rid of (sentence statement as final in it) from its suggestion; namely new § 103 aspect can have the impact of patentability on claimed invention as its § 101 test, and tests due to its § 101 applying foundation in this case.This is that USSC wants to rethink exactly: it is qualified whether the claimed invention of this potential idempotent is still patent ⁽⁸⁾.

USSC obviously notices that ULTRAMERCIAL and other non-obvious inventions probably prove potential idempotent, as fact content, and therefore this technology ⁷⁾true by CAFC ⁽⁸⁾consider and annotate.

(8) about " PHILLIPS case " (on July 12nd, 2005) of CAFC: solve two underlying issues in claim construction about this judgement of the claim 1 of ' 798 patent and opposing views, that is, § subscriber line test is applied to claim/invention.This two problems is illustrated by this claim, and it pays close attention to the part that it is judged utilization.These are:

" be suitable for the building block be assembled together ... shell, have ... ... and be arranged on another of this shell inside device, forincrease its load-bearing capacity andcomprise internal steel baffle, this baffle extends internally from box hat wall " (emphasize and add and(and))

The compound solution design of the key that this claim parlance uses is: " ... < is used for > increases its load-bearing capacity andcomprise internal steel baffle, this baffle extends internally from box hat wall "

With CCD technology (6), this two problems stated again in the term of (7), for confirming that it introduces the increase of the clearness performing § subscriber line test, avoids the mistake wherein removing above opposing views.They are indicated by title below.

" § 112.6 device of implication restriction being imported claim for restriction definition self-contained relative to claim adds the applicability of function means ": " device adds function " clause institute of claim based on the design of compound solution obviously comprise two and separate and conceive ^{9) 1.} .Wherein second (" comprise internal steel baffle, this baffle extends internally from box hat wall ") right and wrong are functional ^{4) e., (6)} .Therefore this clause does not meet the explanation restriction that CAFC defines for § 112.6 ^(5)-(6)(p.5-7) other restriction, namely can not be imported the implication of claim by Sect.I from instructions.Therefore this clause is all the compound cr-C (being different from (6) above) defining this compound de-C.The compound cr-C defined so is only resolved into 3 element cr-C (Sect.IV A, p.31), as above by this judgement like this ^(1)-(7)do not notice that the decomposition of compound de-C will be necessary to be used in advance setting up clearness, namely before determining its compound cr-C, because check that the applicability adding function means about § 112.6 device of this clause will cause different results.First solution design (" increasing its load-bearing capacity ") of decomposing of compound solution design subsequently by be characterized as pure function and be therefore characterized as the restriction imported from instructions added in the implication of claim potentially.Both sides do not propose this problem, and therefore no longer further consider here.

" fact in § § 101/102/103 test is relative to the fact in § § subscriber line test ": opposing views are claimed, in discussed judgement, CAFC based on its Cybor in 1998 adjudicate " ... claim construction does not relate to true problem that is auxiliary or bottom ... ", be " ... adhere to that claim construction is the falsehood of the legal content lacking any true composition " (p.1-2).But two lists of references before the judgement discussed show, its law 112 of the claim of patent ' 798 is analyzed and is not in fact performed the meticulous fact and determine.In other words, in claim construction, CAFC in fact performs the more careful fact and determines, this is not so distinguished by opposing views.

In claim construction, in advance the compound de-C that claim parlance uses is resolved into it decompose design, untie the confusion of this term/concept.In other words, know from senior IT compound implication is resolved into its element implication ^{9) 1./2.} start from first identifying indispensablely these that represent these implication/semanteme conceive in vocabulary/entity of syntax (such as, word, term, figure), because the implication of claim construction determination claim and therefore determine conceive implication, also known as semanteme.Here importantly, these entities can be comprised by claim parlance or by the remainder of the instructions of patent comprise (by the judgement discussed describe in detail), and by MUI ^vform.Therefore, the process of the structure of claim is only until § 112 determines entity (comprising their position) and their the unit semanteme of these vocabulary/syntaxes, is called as de-C together here ^iII.3.2 , and their accurate semanteme, referred to herein as their cr-C ^iII.3.2 , be the fact determined in claim construction is applied also known as § 112 both this indispensablely, out abstract from problem by people here.

Ending: the fact that the fact that represents from these de-/cr-C is very different is striven in the follow-up use of implication/semanteme of the cr-C in 102/103 test or 101 tests, and it is applied by means of each § 112 and determines.And further; § subscriber line test is applied to creativeness/invention design and their semanteme that first claimed invention determines claimed invention; its cr-C i.e.; as the fact relative to associative skills (as above-outlined), § § 102/103 test secondly determine as from determine the fact that cr-C obtains ^iII.1 instruction, claimed invention is semantic relative to the patentability of associative skills and prior art, and final § 101 test the 3rd determine as from determine the fact that cr-C obtains ^iII.1 that indicate, that claimed invention retrains relative to patentability release patent qualification practicality.

On the whole, technology that the effort in (1)-(8) shows " compound (de/cr-) C decomposes CCD " ^{4) a.-f.} provide

In analysis, about undertaken by PTO and law court's (comprising such as in the U.S., CAFC with USSC and above 4 § §) consistent and the firm background of therefore predictable judgement, and how to realize,

In structure, write the transparent legally of patented claim and the claim of safety (example is see chapters and sections V)

They also show that CCD technology not only makes it possible to the Current demands of the application about these 4 § § meeting USSC statement, and on this, make it possible to the whole branch of the requirement meeting the future that patent case will meet, for realizing/keeping predictability, instead of to be distinguished by patent case like that now.All these confirm finally to accept more than the patent ruling of FSTP technology and CCD thereof about worldwide together ^{4) g.(4)} expection.

In the U.S., for its opaque any patent presenting threat of legal relation being subject to itself and 4 § §, if still likely, the example that CIP can make it be suitable for USSC changes, such as to make improvements, as 3 above USSC judgement ask.

4) h.about the advantage that the design of PTO, law office, law court, creative management is decomposed.On agricultural and industrial property, knowledge property stimulates economy now day by day, and particularly their wealth creates engine, and it is knowledge innovation enterprise.Therefore, their innovation/invention and their IPR become crucial tangible assets.This trend is not only with the number of analysis and the blast of complexity, and with to open, rapidly, reliable, reliable and technical absolute uncontested PTO, Patent Law office the increase of needs, and to finally involve in their debate by the increase of the needs of the law court of patent problem qualification, and before these legal issues, to the increase of the needs of the innovation/IPR management of other privately owned/public entities many.

Such as, for PTO business, FSTP technology can the conclusive breakthrough of implementation efficiency, because it

Can by enabling PTO by proof such as ^{9) 5.} this patented claim of expection of the prior art or indicate its unobviousness the technology fact non-existent burden the other way around, (alternatively) auditor is freed from his major part work now, applicant must submit to together with his patented claim subsequently and comprise as PTR-PS (such as tested by FSTP and/or § § 112 and 102/103 check provide) identifies and files and apply wherein, all (without dispute ground analyzed with accurately) PTR-DS of indicative technology and juristic fact, and/or by fuzzy, preemption, Dependence Problem ^{9) 5.} prove that application does not have defect.Auditor pays close attention to these indicative facts that assessment presents to him subsequently, and namely he only needs the sub-fraction worked now performing him.His careful patent analyses/workload doubles together with the reversing of the IES q/a system of auditor by this proof.

Make patent examiner (before him, be inventor and be later in law court's case safeguard/attack lawyer/juror/judge/expert) can immediatelyaccess any (XML4IP) label information in any document V, this has contribution to its (non-) ambiguity/apparent property/patent qualification instruction, remove about any such in any true uncertain.Only PTR-DS can (via IES) provide all significant law about them to prove chain time, this is just likely.

Not only greatly simplify/accelerate the work of auditor, and make it be stabilization for later inspection, by being law court exactly with auditor and the identical mode of applicant, IES's PTR-DS works, comprise and present the technology fact of all keys, juristic fact to them, examination is true, case is true, comprises the fact such as explained by auditor or inventor.

This change of the operator scheme of PTO makes it by operating with the mode that buildings supervises authority identical by being only: the latter does not even go to consider by himself determining whether buildings is firmly built, but a priori provides this proof (this buildings is firm) to everyone of buildings.In other words, buildings supervision authority will only check and confirm his proof, namely ratifies the right established/use this buildings or refuse it.In other words, the science of patented claim and " its invention is relative to the creative height of given prior art " can not be submitted to prove to PTO now, this problem but FSTP technology has terminated.It makes inventor and/or patent attorney and/or IPR keeper can analyze by this FSTP of self-operating invention/innovation/TT.0 before it is submitted to PTO together with his/her patented claim, and before these steps, if needed, suitably form the extra creative effort about discussed invention/innovation/TT.0, and therefore also generate these another PTR-DS improved of reflection.

For inventions such as business/health care/green/nanometers, as any other based on model technological invention, the reversing of this proof not about research/sell/... the alternative of the innovation/IPR management of tissue or PTO.The acceleration increase of the accurate knowledge that these invention/innovations utilize makes to imagine that the human resources of these management and/or PTO and/or patent court quantitatively and qualitatively can catch up with this increase mid-term, has let alone for a long time.

Be worth again paying close attention to short-term effect that KSR/BILSKI/MAYO judgement applies in these to present invention/TT.0 by the form of meticulousr/decomposition in the U.S., namely these pe conceive ^{4) e., g.} .The known problem that CAFC next year has occurred worsens.AIA is intended to the potentiality of the novelty disclosing America's economy in worthily and in time mode, need the handling capacity increasing USPTO, cause the situation more than 10 judges up to ten thousand cases of the current extrusion more than 100 occupants of the BPAI of USPTO being transferred to CAFC.If do not have this proof to reverse, then this will cause it to overload greatly.

On the whole, recent Supreme Judicial Court patent case ^{4) e., g.} with specific IT (IT ^{iV., v.} ) development between the target domain " patent ruling " mainly concentrated on important that influences each other, namely each " innovation control/assessment/sell/use " needs, therefore here avoid all undesired mathematics except required (such as in KR or NL or Study on Semantic) proved very fecund: the example causing the practical problems resolution ability of the very big increase developing the true problem identificatioin about PTR in any one such target domain ^{4) e.-f.} .This example makes it possible to " constantly improve ", and, about PTO, namely each other authoritys are for patent, i.e. the philosophy of the examination ability of each other invention/innovation/TT.0, and significantly improve in they are all ^{4) h.} efficiency.In other words, the development of this hint example that influences each other, its potentiality can cause the change of the example of whole series.

Patent ruling in towards " patented technology " of emerging in large numbers, and broadly towards

Its fact and use " mathematics innovation science " in any field of the life of the transparency of their mutual relationship may paid close attention to.

Due to the huge economic potential impact of this new example, probably strengthen all these.

55) a. is in order to simplify, and any claim/doc.i is limited to and only tackles single TT.i, 0≤i≤I, that is: for any x.0.n, open at the most ^{5) b., c.} an equity x.i.n ^{5) d.} .This restriction obviously can be forgone, because PTR is also limited in addition.

5) any doc.i of b. comprises the disclosure of the dominant of the character of its TT.i and recessiveness, and major part is informal ^iII.1 .

If disclosure comprises having to explicitly describe its element/character/design ^iII.3.2 term and/or figure, then disclosure is dominant in doc.i, and/or

If it does not comprise the such term/figure about element/character/design, then disclosure is recessive in doc.i, but some term/figures that those of ordinary skill (relevant to TT.0) understands the instructions/claim of patent have implied this element/character/design, or the Boolean expression of these disclosures any, or (only EPC) is if the conflict between the implication which avoid the term in its instructions and claim thereof.

Dominant and recessive disclosure is recognized as sometimes " inherent ", respectively " external ", misleading is the disclosure of two classifications is slightly inherent.In other words, external the emphasizing of term, for recessiveness and dominant disclosure, the execution of their explanation meets meticulous external guide about relevant common skill and/or agreement ^{6), 8)}, obviously exceed usual textbook document, such as international standard ^{5) c.} .

In PTR, the common skill relevant to its TT.0 (is correlated with TT.0 potentially ^d. different technical ability) be considered as by any NPS completely implicitly open, 0≤i≤I.But these technical ability can not be claimed to exist, but must in the mode that can realize ^{5) d.} filing; This is for any ^{5) c.} such ps-C all sets up.The prior art design pa-C of TT.i ^iII.3.2 must be having to explicitly open by their doc.i, 0≤i≤I at least in part; This disclosure cr-C being equally applicable to TT.0 is open by doc.0.When PTR is worked on by PTR-PS, disclosed like this ps-C and pa-C is regarded as the right of priority date at TT.0 ^iII.3.2 exist, namely do not create, as cr-C in the TT.0 time of inventing.Ubiquitous filing combination (and having cr-C potentially) creating ps-C and/or pa-C needs to create at it ^{5) d., 6) c} .separate point of view before.

Rarely have design/predicate up to now in the patent by so having to explicitly open, but only wherein by reference they value and used, namely they are mainly by implicitly and only open (particularly at the AD-KR of PTR by halves ^{iII.1, iII.3.2n3,9) R1} in " optionally " open), as a part for the bottom of the term of its claim or instructions, although they are usually indispensable ^{5) c} , particularly for the creationary quantity of its TT.0 and classification, as the Supreme Judicial Court repeats to emphasize in the recent period ⁴⁾.

5) c. associative skills ps and/or prior art pa ^iII.3.2 design/predicatefrequently defined by international standard in PTR problem, again not like this ^{5) b.} having to explicitly they are disclosed.And even wherein, but PTR use ps and/or pa can comprise some adjacent different technical fields ^{5) d.} , be not professionally familiar with their those of ordinary skill.This is such as communication ⁸⁾in situation.

Because level concepts is abstract, indispensable in about this worldwide agreement of complex technology, these ps of these terms/concept bottom of associative skills ^iII.3.2 may be complicated accordingly and be that highly structural is (such as, by their value simultaneous ^{8), 9)}the different partial orders of component, these different partial orders coexisted defined by these components and/or architecturally by such as they logical OR topology near region define, or defined by their order and/or cooperation when performing something, such as component arrives in place, or their position etc.).But, in PTR of these complicated designs of ps-C and/or pa-C of TT.i, only may use the relation of a small amount of design and/or their component/value/between them, only use single potentially.In other words, the such ps-C/pa-C of major part and their pass tie up in PTR problem is unsubstantial [FSTP Tech.Rep.#1: " AD-/BID-KRs ofthe'884-PTR " 1)].

5) d. is except this potential concept complicacy of ps-C/pa-C ^{5) c.} outside, doc.i, i>=0 also can disclose use and belong to different technologies ^{5) a.,5) c.,6) c.,8)} ps-C and pa-C, even belong to same technology, but these ps-C and pa up to now ^{5) c., 8), 9) 1.-3.} " combination " unknown.Hereafter ^{6) c., V} discuss and how to make this composition transparent.

Example ^{1), 8)}describe its TT.0 how to realize its creationary data transmission technically (by o-cr-C ^tT.0modeling) ^{n5 i), 9) 1.-2.} ' multiple dominant disclosure in 884-doc.0, always start on the internet, guarantee that data transmission period is less than 0.5 second, namely realize Internet Protocol telephone.Plain old telephone technical ability and general internet technical ability know peer cop ps-C ^int, ps-C ^tel, wherein d (ps-C ^{tel ↓ dtt})={ (0,0.5) } and d (ps-C ^{int ↓ dtt})={ (0, ∞) }, the latter eliminates Internet Protocol telephone.' 884-doc.0 having to explicitly discloses technical realization " real-time Data Transmission (transmitting) on internet " in the mode that can realize ¹⁾very concrete mode, namely unknown up to now ps-C ^{int ↓ dtt}with ps-C ^{tel ↓ dtt}combination, combination design cr-C ^{tT.0 ↓ dtt}, wherein d (cr-C ^{tT.0 ↓ dtt})={ (0,0.5) }.In other words, ' the 884-doc.0 right of priority date, at posc ^int+ pa ^int+ posc ^tel+ pa ^telin do not have document open by known ps-C, one of them ps-C is from " internet ", and another is from " phone ", is combined into the cr-C of creationary/invention in the mode that can realize particularly ^{tT.0 ↓ dtt}, even not to it is claimed/claim ^{6) c.} .

Creativeness/invention cr-C (combined ps-C in the past ^{int ↓ dtt}and ps-C ^{tel ↓ dtt}cr-C ^{tT.0 ↓ dtt}) usually in the doc.0 of PTR by making x.0.n quote its value and be disclosed, there is no equity simultaneously x.i.n such value is quoted.Only from x.0.n peer items, namely x.i ' .n and x.i in two amount of component b r-C that " n quotes, it is chosen ^{iII.2, ii)} not by the character (namely openly how in fact not realize this combination cr-C in the mode that can realize) of the allowing creativeness for this combination of attack protection, this is expected by both posc+pa based on proving it, because wherein its formation is known ^{6) c.} .Note, this combination cr-C is usually BID-cr-C, must be able to not be regarded as by these key elements ^{9) 1.-2.} the compound cr-C of the polymerization formed.

6) a.disclosed ⁵⁾aD-X.i.n/AD- x.i.n, the AD-KR of the PTR of i>0 ^{7) c.} and AD-AC ^iII.2 in, can for N number of AD-X.0.n or N number of AD-with the AD-X.0.n/AD-X.0.n of its equity x.0.n any one or in K AD-C.k etc. lacks completely, in the latter case, namely there is the AD-to this AD-AC x.i.n the AD-C.k in quotes, the AD-that the U (AD-C.k) that this AD-C.k can be defined by TT.0 is outside x.i.n quote.Any " expection is not enough " like this of AD-AC is easy to finally even automatically determine, because can make all AD- x.i.n there is identical normal form ^{7) a.} .Exemplarily, FSTP test in its PTR analyzes by make non-existent peer items X.i.n in doc.i or x.i.n being present in AC comes these situation modelings as " pseudo-reciprocity .i (dummy-peer.i) ", and as existence equity, but have different U (C.k), the two is by cr ⁱ-C.k marks.The pseudo-item of this two class represents ideality, and namely indicate, it shows after AD-AC/mod (AD-q-CC), the disappearance in this AD-AC in doc.i/failed X.i.n/ x.i.n need by for making this AD-AC expect, TT.0 creates the AD-cr fabricated ⁱthe position of-C.k.This cr is defined by the FSTP test about doc.i ⁱ-C.k can be defined as, this AD-cr ⁱ-C.k not with TT.i ^iII.2.i) conflict.This by " pseudo-restriction .i (dummy-limit.i) " modeling, can not further describe it here.Note, the discussion of this " AD rank " is here unsubstantial and in following sections, is only provided for understanding problem.

Further, for any <BID-of exposure x.i.n, BID- x.0.n> right any PTR-PS service, in order to determine BID-ANC relation, current to be only evaluated as A or N/C (not utilizing C here) to it interested.Once determine BID-KR (PTR), then this usually can be distinguished from the disclosure of posc and document .i by the FSTP user had about the abundant technical ability of his/her PTR immediately.In other words, BID-KR (TT.0) makes this judgement trivialization, does not need formal AD-and BID-later x.i.n, also known as BID-cr-C.i ^{1) [chapters and sections III]}but, replaced by pseudo-item.Therefore each A/N/C is current alternatively can be input to this PTR-PS serve when using PTR-PS to serve by him/her, or is inputted by this PTR-PS, together with all relevant technology and/or law explanation, to be confirmed by posc personnel.But finally, once the high-level semantics research carried out in FSTP project realizes the formalization of the implication of the information involved fully, then this information (at least preliminarily) will by PTR-PS service creation.

Because this is in fact so important, therefore again, experienced RT at initial o-KR (TT.0) ^{iII.3.2, D5/N5} be normalized into BID-KR (TT.0) ^{7) c.} tT.0 after, it is obviously almost ordinary for continuing this mode, especially, because { X.0.n} the final o-/AD-/BID-KR for all PTR is identical.

6) b. has indicated about this discussion of some potentially AD-/BID-KR of PTR and supposed that single separate point of view can be in fact enough for creating independent AD-cr in AD-KR ⁱ-C ⁴⁾, be usually totally underestimating of the complicacy of the intelligence barrier that will overcome for its creation, particularly under this AD-cr-C in the prior art complete non-existent situation, and when it is present in doc.i, its instruction departs from TT.0 ^iII.2 .For AD-/BID-" combination cr-C " ^{5) b.} there is very similar problem potentially, " can not cut down " for AD-/BID-cr-C independent of each other, not describe mathematical problem in detail here.Therefore for the AD-/BID-Q that PTR determines ^plcsvalue be only the lower limit of the actual number about the separate point of view implemented relative to its RS by its TT.0, hint identifies more viewpoint in doc.0, and this always makes it increase ^iII.3.2n1 .

6) c. and similarly, the case of all NPS occurs simultaneously, technically ⁷⁾be that the combination of new (namely do not record and be marvellous technically) ps-/pa-C should be regarded as creationary relative to prior art RS, namely created by separate point of view, namely the non-obvious of TT.0 is indicated ^{5) c.} there is contribution.But here law court accidentally provides fallacy ¹⁾.

More accurately, the existence of ps-/pa-C does not imply that their combination is ordinary and does not need by separate point of view ^{5) b.} , create also known as 1-CC.In other words, PTR-PS must can not suppose that creating this combination does not need 1-CC, because its ps or pa be archived is open ^{5) b.-d.} .Just mention that this ps-/pa-C combination belongs to identical or different technical field, be absolutely not" invention is conceived ⁴⁾" the disclosure that can realize, namely how actual available technically this combination is.Above ^{5) d., 1)} example in, only to RS add telephone type patent and carry out subsequently choosing (at any NPS ^iII.2 the middle case by the Supreme Judicial Court is got rid of) neither the preservation of element integrality, neither the disclosure that can realize of " invention C " in pa.

Finally, only in the recent period ^{[EPA-G03/08 judgement], 4) a.-g.}the problem having occurred ps-/pa-C to be combined into cr-C with compound cr-C is resolved into thinner and clearly cr-C legally ^{9) 5.} problem be closely related, although this two problems must carefully be distinguished, because can to the patentability of innovation/invention/TT.0 both them, law inspection in any NPS of i.e. each patent qualification applies decisive influence, such as pass through § § 112 in the U.S., 102/103,1019) 5..

77) a. first, and clarification term " technology " (postpones " technology " problem ^{7) d.} ).Here for two objects:

I) what the difference reminding " technology " invention/innovation/TT.0 (" i/i/TT.0 ") and " non-technical " in our all thinkings to invent/innovate/TT.0 (new style of music or poem " paint or " of such as " fine arts ") is, and is specifically used for

Ii) for the invention/innovation/TT.0 of PTR, based on so-called " secondary consideration " when not clearly technical foundation (such as " market success " or " needing for a long time "), make here ^{iII.1, iII.2} define and distinguishing mutually with the fact of different vacation on basis of the technology consequence described in detail and its non-technical, hereafter only briefly mention.

For i), innovation/TT.0 is called as " technology ", obtains if they are created by the design of the accurate definition of the practical management of accurate definition " knowledge based ".After this practice of this " knowledge based " that be pre-existing in is called as " technology ", because the character of their element is simple, makes them only can develop the rule of simple logic-based, also known as the relation between them ^{3), 4)}.This means, describe these and put into practice element, also known as content ^{3), 4)}between the predicate of this relation be constrained to FOL predicate, finally at its BID-KR ^{7) b., c.} in.This definition of the implication of the term " technology " of innovation/TT.0 is rational, simple and be clear definition.Which avoid the subject content owing to the definition of this term concepts to be connected to innovation/TT.0 bottom and any problem caused, namely ignoring such phenomenon " innovation/TT.0 " is independently subject content, natural law ^{*), 4) d., III.3} .Finally should to prove both sides liefly/internationally acceptable/match.Finally, ps and pa that the concept hint of " accurately setting up the knowledge of definition " is represented by it must be archived, namely open respectively ⁵⁾, both are all open on the right of priority date of TT.0 in the mode that can realize.

For ii) there is " the secondary consideration " of innovation/TT.0, it can cause the fact of claiming of non-technical in some cases, also known as " false token ", its based on the knowledge produced exclusively after the right of priority date (such as, based on the product of this innovation/TT.0 deduction but still be not meet long-term needs allegedly without the confirmable market success in dispute ground/far and away or its).Consider contrary with last class secondary, analysis afterwards, secondary also known as the consequence of innovation/TT.0 is considered, do not use the knowledge of this " only ", but be used in its right of priority date former completely available knowledge, always cause technology secondary true, although the latter is not usually distinguished yet on the right of priority date.Classical example for the confirmable this technology secondary fact of TT.0 is that it removes the misbelief (if existing before the right of priority date) set up.As presented here, the technology secondary fact (and the right of priority date of any TT.0 therefore existed before this patented claim is not distinguished) for TT.0 always confirmable innovation is without dispute ground/confirmable far and away, and is therefore provided for such as assessing NPS by law court ^{9) 5.} in the cocksure basis of legal nature of invention/innovation/TT.0

7) basis that b. has innovation/TT.0 has simple semanteme, and more accurately, " Patent Law accepts semantic plcs ", this simplification of result is for its doc.0 instructions ^{7) a.} may not be obvious.Reason is, the plcs simplification of innovation/TT.0 is greatly blocked by multiple NOT logic context, such as: the language of the deficiency of foundation ²⁾, towards this innovation/TT.0 the departing from of application-specific, lack write diligent etc., also have pmgp ^{1), 4)}.When writing and/or when explaining the doc.0 of open invention/innovation/TT.0, even this alogical irrational background is liked for most people and/or affects most people usually, normally unintentionally, namely unheeded, namely apply than objective order and/or accurately much higher attention/impact.In other words, decomposed by compound design when its § § 112/102/103/101 tests and identify its any technically intrinsic plcs logic simplifying, need all dominant/recessive disclosure identified in doc.0 ^{5), 6)}.In other words: this simplification is usually easy to as PTR finds normalization ^iII.3.2 reason, i.e. its BID-PTR accurately ^{7) c.} .(such as, make it possible to identify from prior art RS to TT.0 ^{4) c.} ) all shortest paths.

7) c. indicates its TT.0 relative to RS for determining ⁴⁾the fact of (non-) apparent property, the AD-PTR of PTR is usually chaotic ^{7) a., 5) b., 4) a.-g.} , " random " C of the mode of the Supreme Judicial Court: AD-PRT usually misleads as significantly departing from which.The disclosure of the doc.i of AD-PTR ^{5) b.} any initial explanation hypothesis for any character of any element of doc.0, the reciprocity character of the peer element in doc.i, i>0 can pass through single separate point of view ^{4) a.-b.} change, make this character of this character expection doc.0 of doc.i.In our concept more accurately ^iII.1/2 in, this hypothesis is pronounced: ... for any element any character AD-X.0.n of TT.0 x.0.n, the reciprocity character AD-of the peer element X.i.n in doc.i, i>0 x.i.n ^{5) a.} can be changed by single separate point of view 1-CC, make AD- x.i.n/mod (1-CC) antsaD- x.0 ^{6) a.} .

This original hypothesis is sometimes for some PTR and their AD- x.i.n be correct, but be usually wrong.The AD-changed because of 1-CC x.i.n one in AD-C can first depend on other AD-C (and subsequently for calculating separate point of view ^{4) a.(1)} may be disabled), subsequently, may not by the amendment of single 1-CC separate point of view (such as, being height compound C), and the 3rd, its amendment by 1-CC may to another AD-also depended in its AC x.i.n " spinoff " is had (and therefore to AD- x.i.n NC relation has spinoff, makes it change A relation into), therefore affect Q ^plcsunless (compensated ^{9) 3., III.3.2D2/N2} ).

Therefore, for any such PTR ^{9) 5.} absolutely not basis to its AD-KR (if completely discernible, and its random AD-C.k) analysis be defined as separately creating its TT.0 and started to carry out searching at least need how many separate point of views from its prior art RS, namely its TT.0 is relative to its prior art RS ^{4 (ii)}implement how many creative.Indispensable is first PTR is transformed to independent binary C (BID-C) from its AD-KR subsequently, namely transforms to its BID-KR.Patent Law case does not still understand the o-/AD-KR about PTR ^{4) g.(5), 9) .5} the difficulty of frequent appearance, and more do not understand it is carried out " normalization " ^iII.3.2 for determining the needs of its TT.0 relative to the creative height of its prior art RS. under all these frequently situation, these Patent Law cases based on the extremely suspicious fact, are worldwide that § § 102/103 adjudicates in the U.S..Above ^{4) g.(1-9)} by means of these § § of current most interested application ^{9) 5.} case describe, when accepting to use the claim of compound design in the wider problem that runs into now, also affecting § § 112 and 101 in the U.S. and adjudicating.

Should keep about determining in these facts that (non-) apparent property indicates, what rational shortage which accurate meaning that is true and/or these true representatives be actually in PTR analyzes even if current, and therefore the BID-KR of PTR is excessive: history teaches, under engineering background, this always can not be popular to depending on of mistake.The accuracy of first important being confirmed to be: BID-KR of the correctness of this advance notice is indispensable for execution for it, as required in recent USSC ^{4) g., 9) 5.} .

The example of the ps-C of the International standardization in 8 communications is called as " open system interconnection reference model (OSI-RM) ".It is reached an agreement on by global large-scale standardization, such as ISO, ITU-T, IEEE, IEC, IETF etc. and their national counterparty, such as ANSI, DIN, AFNOR, BSI, NTT etc.It is across the ps of many communications, and it comprises communicating with terminal user, such as phone application.But it greatly ignores such as about the ps of the signaling problem in communication, this problem is very different for the former ps, and is covered by diverse international standard set (SIP of SS7 or IETF of such as ITU-T).The top layer o-ps-C of OSI-RM ^{n5) i), 9 (ii)} be " the application data transmission " in OSI-RM structure " communication connection ", they are different from the top layer ps-C of the latter to complete transmission modeling, and the latter is only to the signaling modeling for setting up telephone communication connection.

The use of these OSI-RM term/concepts in the patent of ' 884 is clearly, do not have to state clearly and clearly in addition (needed for the Patent Law case of US and European).The extensive consensus of country/international bodies has insight into the language using layman in communication based on them inevitably create the mixed opinion of concept, reason is such as the various important details of the conflict implication of the concept of the layman of the term of " connection ".

As international standard, OSI-RM defines it posc personnel ^{4) a.} the implication of English term.That is, the term/concept of OSI-RM can not grasped by layman immediately by selection, but to those skilled in the art provide common accept/necessary conceptual foundation.In order to clarify in international (particularly American market addressing) communication patent, have selected the only existing world/country's agreementcommunication reference model is for identifying the term/concept of its relevant common skill, and the strange of situation uses " Robert Webster is without dictionary of abridging " as English.In other words, for communication patent, associated communication technical ability definitely must utilize ISO OSI Reference Model indispensablely.

According to this standard, the concept of " transmission " means the overall data transmission of call, and should not mix with " the transmission data " in certain stage of this considered communication connection, namely has the details of this transmission.Subsequently, in appropriate circumstances, this is highlighted for averting misconceptions by capitalization.In other words, this transmission comprises transmits much more content than the data of reality, such as, also have " from packet switch become line exchange ... " (see col.9:43-52).Together with col.9:37-41, this has clarified the tight conceptual relation between transmission and communication connection, and has clarified this change of the transmission monitored only be derived from and affectthis communication connection (other line exchanges and connects and may priori transship, and therefore obviously can not realize the real-time quality of its expection) of considering.See chapters and sections II.A.1.2 to obtain the other restriction about this transmission.

Concept for nonexpondable term " connection " here: the general implication that there is not this term.Its concept always depends on the context by this term of its prefix identification.In communication, term " communication connection " represents " abstract communications applications association " (first page see above OSI Reference Model) of two communication parties, therefore as its name.It belongs to osi layer 7 (=L7), and namely it is " abstract application connection ", also known as " L-7 connection ".In case of the telephone call, its communication connection is the abstract phone association between the abstract model of the telephone set of calling party and callee.When accurately identifying the address of the terminal of callee in the end of calling party, it becomes " existence ", as the association between calling party and the phone model of callee.The connection that " foundation " exists represents the process performing its abstract technology and realize, and this comprises only just possible behavior after it becomes existence.The first step set up, also known as " setting up " communication connection by term " calling " popular mark.Technician knows the ins and outs of abstract local resource needs and the agreement that will meet between the terminal of calling party/callee during call setup.Calling, can enter its " operational phase " also known as its communication connection and finally enter its " termination phase " after it " sets up the stage ".In all stages, calling needs the data transmission performing terminal-to-terminal service between the terminal of its communication connection.

The communication connection of calling is the connection of terminal-to-terminal service, and so-called " network connection " (also known as " L3 connection ") that the interval of its switch-to-switch can use packet switch or line to exchange.In communication, these prefixes " L7 ", " application "/" communication ", " network "/" L3 ", " link "/" L2 " etc. of " technically referring to " will frequently be omitted, in any case because they are clearly for mechanics of communication personnel.Therefore, some positions in a large amount of situation and in each its communication connection of transmitting, monitoring may postpone (imply eternal delay and how to understand from the first switch it is abstract) by time of occurrence, and do not need to be caused by packet switching network completely, but may cause in outside.The actual example of the possible cause of this event is:

When using packet switching network to be used for considered communication connection, first switch exhausts buffer space (such as making the data packetization entered from telephone set) as required, or it run out of required other resources (such as suitable compression/decompression resource) for this purpose, or it can not forward the packet to packet switching network (such as, someone has pulled up plug or it encounters some inner managements restriction), or it finds that unacceptable delay in the data that the second switch receives or the second switch have the resource mismatch problem about the first switch (those skilled in the art do not need to illustrate how to realize this discovery) just identified.These events any can occur any time in this communication connection after transmission starts.

9 about some extra remarks of the mathematical modeling of the patent case of design, predicate, KR and the Supreme Judicial Court.

1.for PTR, any AD-cr/de-C is regarded as potential " the compound cr/de-C " that comprise the more tiny design also known as " meticulousr ", is usually written as " BID-cr/de-C " for short " element cr/de-C " ^d2-4/N2-4 ." compound "/" formation "/" composition "/" polymerization "/" integration "/" comprising " can by random widely ^2. definition, as long as by posc personnel ^d2-4/N2-4 confirm.Compound cr-C combination can be the productive set of the set defining BID-cr-C from several BID-cr-C, or their union etc.BID-cr/de-C " integration "/" polymerization " ^{iII.1, D4/N4} become compound cr/de-C, namely for the true modeling of plcs of the disclosure fact, test at the § § 112,103,101 of invention ^{4) g., 5) d., 6) b.} middle misunderstanding.BID-cr-C can at random be resolved into trickleer BID-cr-C ∈ pos+pa, such as, binary compound design based on plural number " 1+i " can be broken down into the binary element design with dC " 1 " and " i ".AD-cr-C can be BID-cr-C, and does not resolve into trickleer BID-cr-C, wherein occurs that twice trickleer BID-cr-C can be counted as once.Compound design can be depalthough, each by indbID-cr-C forms ^d2/N2 .

The conclusive legally character of BID-cr-C is their independence ^{4) a., D1/2, N1/2} , but not their attainable prosaically duality (by repeating them): duality and law have nothing to do, but the actual nature of independent cr-C.That is, they " about they cr-C set cr-C between independence " character ^d2/N2 (based on these BID-cr-C<dC, U (C) > or only based on U (C)) be very significant legally and must be stated/confirm (unless cr-C is by mathematical definition by posc personnel, see above, this makes it possible to the independence mathematically proving them, namely makes these posc be confirmed to be indredundancy ^d2/N2 ).

Reason compound cr-C being reduced to binary independence cr-C is usually very simple, is derived from the logic/technology of great majority invention/TT.0 ^{7) a.} simplify: their compound cr-C ^{5) d.} it is only usually the link of their BID-cr-C ^{5) d., 8)} .

2.by the dC of U (C) is taken as ptruth set, do not need to distinguish between binary C and predicate relative to its U (C).For this C, should phere its " mirror image predicate is called as c", vice versa, and U (C) is this cbinary " mirror image design ".

Ignore details, this interchangeability between binary C and their mirror image predicate can be summarized as set clink, its by binary compound design mirror image, referred to herein as " COM{C} ".In fact any AD- cusually this link, " decomposable asymmetric choice net " becomes cand their { mirror image C}.This AD-like this ccomprise cand its COM{C} comprises { binary mirror image C}.Select from the binary C of the identification of PTR indthe maximal subset (not necessarily unique) of C, cause wherein dep ^d2/N2 do not selected ^d2/N2 .Although in AD-KR (PTR), the independence of (binary or non-binary) C does not need existence or does not need to distinguish ^{7) b.} but for can normalized PTR, it exists and is easy to identifiable design ^d2/N2 , create the BID-KR (PTR) of PTR.

3.the number in AC is determined in <A> aC|{NCAC.i.jn|1≤jn≤Jn}| implies hypothesis

Must to BID '-C ^aC.i.j _n≠ BID '-C.0.j _nperform at least one 1-' CC, for realizing BID '-C ^aC.i.j _n/ mod (1-' CC)=BID '-C.0.j _n, that is, BID '-C ^aC.i.j _n/ (mod/1-' CC) antsbID '-C.0.j _n, and

By forwarded to BID '- c ^aC.i.j _nzero=T.i.j _nzero (namely makes ^{6) a.} bID '-C ^aC.i.j _nzero=BID '-C.0.jn zero), perform this each 1-' CC for (in this AC) another BID '- c ^aCi.j _nzero=F.i.j _nzero ^{6) a.} be free from side effects.This needs posc personnel ^{d4/N4, D5iii)} confirm.If occurred in this AC, then ^d2for this BID '- c ^aC.i.j _nzero sets up as follows: BID '- c ^aC.i.j _n depbID '-C ^aCi.j _nand this BID '-C ^aC.i.j _nbe not counted into, the extra cr-C of phase antirepresentation TT.0 represents there is not this dependence in TT.i.

4.create cr-C (beginning see III.3.2) in situation 3) in be " basis " and in situation 1) and 2) in be " improvement " innovative measure, as philosophy innovation theory ^{4) b.} informal definitions/distinguish/distinguish such.

5.meet in inspection at the § § 112,102/103,101 of TT.0, the claim of PTR is to the compound design used in the term of its TT.0 ^{1., 4) g.} may be " legally fallibility/misleading " (for they legal explanations based on Supreme Judicial Court's case).Therefore this compound cr-C use should be licensed in claim parlance, records in claim construction based on it.If there is the compound cr-C that TT.0 is decomposed in trickleer design set 1., then this use is carried out, and this set is:

Be " unlimited " for the function of claimed invention and scope, until § 112, be modeled as basis by this cr-C, for this function, i.e. scope any other plcs and/or the pmgp requirement that will meet, or

Gathering for this cr-C is " dependence " ^{iII.3.2.D2/N2} , therefore forbid that it becomes and determine basis, until § § 102/103, the function of invention is relative to prior art ^iII.1 creativeness/invention " plcs height ", or

" taking the lead " is gathered for this cr-C, therefore forbids that it becomes and determine basis, until § § 101, relative to prior art ^iII.1 scope of invention, and therefore " pmgp height ", or

Being " hiding restriction " for the function of claimed invention and/or scope, until § § 112/102/103/101, therefore forbidding that this set becomes the basis determined for performing all these exclusively.

This list also show the logic of the legal restrictions checking cr-C, and it eliminates the misleading potentiality of this set on the whole.

In other words, compound creativeness/invention design should only be licensed in the claim parlance about invention, if it is " pure legally ", otherwise it should be prohibited at the latest from using in each claim construction, mean: the creativeness/invention design set of if there is no decomposing the design of this compound, its eliminate fallibility legally/mislead because its can be proved to be for be unlimited or rely on or take the lead or hide restriction (at least by posc personnel ^iII.3.2D4/N4confirm).Otherwise the design of this compound inevitably realizes/causes above-mentioned ^{4) g.} uncertain/inconsistent case.These are the clear law term/concept identified now ^{4) g.} in the mathematical definition of 3 (do not need here ^v.) will provide in addition ¹⁰⁾, independent see law term/concept ^iII.3.2D2/N2 mathematical definition.

10 " the Patent Technology and Mathematical Innovation Theory " that will publish, S.Schindler.

Claims (30)

1. a computer implemented method, for for " the problem PTR of TT.0 and RS ^cT" generate the data structure " PTR used by expert system ^cT-DS ", the computer system performing described method has for generating PTR ^cTthe processor of-DS and for storing PTR ^cTthe storer of-DS, described method comprises:

Receive the document .0 of the tag entry (" doc.0-MUI ") with information of public technology instruction TT.0, receive the list of references set RS with the document .i of doc.i-MUI of public technology instruction TT.i, i=1,2,3,, and by all document .i, i=0,1,2 ..., and their MUI writes PTR ^cTin-DS, any one doc.i-MUI is called as " subject content item ";

Receive background document, i.e. document .CT, it comprises the guidance (such as the term of 35 USC § §s 112/102/103/101) of authority for the term of doc.CT-MUI, and document .CT and MUI is write PTR ^cTin-DS, any one doc.CT-MUI is called as " law item ";

And, as described in the following steps of method determine, create the item of two kinds further by performing the method:

A () identifies the TT.0's of the described claim of doc.0

.1 an element, and generate the set comprising it, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

.2 the character of described element, and generate the set comprising it, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

.3 at least one creative binary is independently conceived, the link of their mirror image predicate is made to describe described character, independently conceive for each creative binary and uniquely independently conceive the set generating and comprise it for this creative binary, and any described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

B (), for any set generated in (a), generation discloses the set of the doc.0-MUI of its element and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

C (), for any set generated in (b), generates the set of the I.CT deciding it and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

For any doc.i, i>0, repeat step (d) to (f), and wherein for any item with the content equity generated in (a) .1 or (a) .3:

D () generates the set comprising following element of TT.i: with the element of the content equity in step (a) .1, condition is that this peer element does not exist, and is replaced with pseudo-peer element; Or independently conceive with the binary of the TT.i of the content equity in step (a) .3, condition is that it does not exist or is not equal to its counterpart in TT.0, is replaced with pseudo-equity design, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

E (), for any set generated in (d), is created in doc.i the set of the doc.i-MUI being disclosed in the item be replaced in (d) and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

F (), for any set generated in (e), generates the set of the I.CT deciding it and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

G () generates the set of all expection combinations based on the replacement of (d) and is written into PTR ^cTin-DS;

H (), for any AC generated in (g), generates the set of the most short data records of Q 1-CC, makes AC/mod (Q-CC) antstT.0, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

I (), for any sequence of Q the 1-CC generated in (h), generates the set of the I.CT deciding it, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

J () is for the set generated in (a) to (i), generate the set of the demonstration chain about test T, described series connection of proving chain represents test T, thus any chain is limited to the set that comprises from (a) to (i) as link, described link is bonded together by natural language fragment

K (), for any set generated in (a) to (j), generates and accesses set in real time, condition needs to guarantee transferring and be presented in actual conversation and being terminated of this set, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS.

2. method according to claim 1, wherein, its set generated has the character described in (a) to (k) by its BID-cr-C:

A () (a) .1 " AD-TT.0 design " ≡ comprises it

A) element is X.0.n, or

B) predicate AD- x.0.n, 1≤n≤N, and

A () .2 " BID-TT.0 design " ≡ comprises it

A) BID-C.0.k ⁿ, 1≤kn≤Kn, Σ ^1≤n≤Nk ⁿ=K>=N, makes

B) any AD-of (a) .1 x.0.n be BID-C.0.k ⁿmirror image predicate BID- c.0.k ⁿlink,

(b) " SoDIS (Y.0) design " its element of ≡ " SoDIS (Y.0) ": :=dis (y.0): :=open MUI.0}} Y.0,

(c) " SoJ (dis (y.0)) design " its element of ≡ " SoJ (dis (y.0)) ": :=I.CT} of ruling dis (y.0),

And for any 1≤i≤I in (d) to (f)

D () " BID-TT.i design " ≡ comprises it

A) with X.0.n reciprocity element X.i.n or reciprocity pseudo-X.i.n, or

If b) its=BID-C.0.k ⁿ, then BID-C.i.k ⁿ, or reciprocity pseudo-BID-C.i.k ⁿ, 1≤k ⁿ≤ K ⁿ, 1≤n≤N,

(e) " SoDIS (Y.i) design " its element of ≡ " SoDIS (Y.i) ": :=dis (y.i): :=MUI.i}} of open Y.i,

(f) " SoJ (dis (y.i)) design " its element of ≡ " SoJ (dis (y.i)) ":: the={ I.CT} of ruling dis (y.i)

And further

(g) " BID-AC design " ≡ it comprise PTR ^cTaC,

(h) " SoQCC (Y) design " its element of ≡ " QCC (Y) ": :=qcc (y): :={ Q-CC|Y/mod (Q-CC) antstT.0}},

(i) " SoJ (qcc (y)) design " its element of ≡ " J (qcc (y)) ": :=I.CT} of ruling qcc (y),

(j) " SoARGC (T) design " ≡ it comprise the demonstration chain of execution about test T, any chain is limited to only to comprise and specifically gathers as link for T from (a) to (i), described link is bonded together by natural language fragment

(k) " SoAccess design " ≡ it comprise at least one q/a provision, it guaranteed in 1 second

K () .1 is taking PTR ^cTthe item generated in (a) to (j) is distinguished in any inquiry of the given query language of-DS,

K () .2 transfers described item and is presented on the PTR that user can determine ^cTin the expression of-DS.

3. method according to claim 2, wherein, for all dis (y) and the J (dis (y)) of Y, following relation is set up, they comprise, and { all doc.0-MUI} of open Y are { all doc.CT-MUI} of ruling dis (y) respectively.

4. method according to claim 2, wherein, PTR ^cT-DS comprises all SoJ (qcc (AC)) design of conceiving about all BID-AC.

5. method according to claim 1, wherein, due to user interactions ground the restarting of the described method that causes of the change increased progressively of item that performs, can reuse the PTR generated before this change ^cTa part of-DS.

6. method according to claim 1, wherein, PTR ^cT-DS is implemented as one or several data objects in one or several computer systems.

7. method according to claim 1, wherein, user can based on different document .CT at any time at some PTR ^cTchange between-DS.

8. method according to claim 1, wherein, generates PTR ^cTat least one step (a) to (k) normally alternatively performed of-DS is performed automatically.

9. method according to claim 1, wherein, PTR ^cTuser-defined " the secondary fact of technology " item of TT.0 can be introduced in PTR ^cTduring-DS generates, as extra item.

10. method according to claim 1, wherein, the PTR generated ^cTthe provision of the scope of the pattern that-DS comprises for monitoring, charging and report use it to conceive.

11. 1 kinds of devices, are controlled by computer implemented method, for for " the problem PTR of TT.0 and RS ^cT" generate the data structure " PTR used by expert system ^cT-DS ", the computer system performing described method has for generating PTR ^cTthe processor of-DS and for storing PTR ^cTthe storer of-DS, described method comprises:

Receive the document .0 of the tag entry (" doc.0-MUI ") with information of public technology instruction TT.0, receive the list of references set RS with the document .i of doc.i-MUI of public technology instruction TT.i, i=1,2,3,, and by all document .i, i=0,1,2 ..., and their MUI writes PTR ^cTin-DS, any one doc.i-MUI is called as " subject content item ";

Receive background document, i.e. document .CT, it comprises the guidance (such as the term of 35 USC § §s 112/102/103/101) of authority for the term of doc.CT-MUI, and document .CT and MUI is write PTR ^cTin-DS, any one doc.CT-MUI is called as " law item ";

And, as described in the following steps of method determine, create the item of two kinds further by performing the method:

A () identifies the TT.0's of the described claim of doc.0

.4 an element, and generate the set comprising it, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

.5 the character of described element, and generate the set comprising it, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

.6 at least one creative binary is independently conceived, the link of their mirror image predicate is made to describe described character, independently conceive for each creative binary and uniquely independently conceive the set generating and comprise it for this creative binary, and any described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

B (), for any set generated in (a), generation discloses the set of the doc.0-MUI of its element and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

C (), for any set generated in (b), generates the set of the I.CT deciding it and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

For any doc.i, i>0, repeat step (d) to (f), and wherein for any item with the content equity generated in (a) .1 or (a) .3:

D () generates the set comprising following element of TT.i: with the element of the content equity in step (a) .1, condition is that this peer element does not exist, and is replaced with pseudo-peer element; Or independently conceive with the binary of the TT.i of the content equity in step (a) .3, condition is that it does not exist or is not equal to its counterpart in TT.0, is replaced with pseudo-equity design, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

E (), for any set generated in (d), is created in doc.i the set of the doc.i-MUI being disclosed in the item be replaced in (d) and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

F (), for any set generated in (e), generates the set of the I.CT deciding it and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

G () generates the set of all expection combinations based on the replacement of (d) and is written into PTR ^cTin-DS;

H (), for any AC generated in (g), generates the set of the most short data records of Q 1-CC, makes AC/mod (Q-CC) antstT.0, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

I (), for any sequence of Q the 1-CC generated in (h), generates the set of the I.CT deciding it, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS;

J () is for the set generated in (a) to (i), generate the set of the demonstration chain about test T, described series connection of proving chain represents test T, thus any chain is limited to the set that comprises from (a) to (i) as link, described link is bonded together by natural language fragment

K (), for any set generated in (a) to (j), generates and accesses set in real time, condition needs to guarantee transferring and be presented in actual conversation and being terminated of this set, and described set is written to PTR ^cTin-DS.

12. devices according to claim 11, controlled by computer implemented method, between the set generation of described method, described set is called as " item " subsequently, described method in the step (a) to (k) additional qualification they, to represent:

A () (a) .1 " AD-TT.0 design " ≡ comprises it

A) element is X.0.n, or

B) predicate AD- x.0.n, 1≤n≤N, and

A () .2 " BID-TT.0 design " ≡ comprises it

A) BID-C.0.k ⁿ, 1≤k ⁿ≤ K ⁿ, Σ ^1≤n≤Nk ⁿ=K>=N, makes

B) any AD-of (a) .1 x.0.n be BID-C.0.k ⁿmirror image predicate BID- c.0.k ⁿlink,

(b) " SoDIS (Y.0) design " its element of ≡ " SoDIS (Y.0) ": :=dis (y.0): :=open MUI.0}} Y.0,

(c) " SoJ (dis (y.0)) design " its element of ≡ " SoJ (dis (y.0)) ": :=I.CT} of ruling dis (y.0),

And for any 1≤i≤I in (d) to (f)

D () " BID-TT.i design " ≡ comprises it

A) with X.0.n reciprocity element X.i.n or reciprocity pseudo-X.i.n, or

If b) its=BID-C.0.k ⁿ, then BID-C.i.k ⁿ, or reciprocity pseudo-BID-C.i.k ⁿ, 1≤k ⁿ≤ K ⁿ, 1≤n≤N,

(e) " SoDIS (Y.i) design " its element of ≡ " SoDIS (Y.i) ": :=dis (y.i): :=MUI.i}} of open Y.i,

(f) " SoJ (dis (y.i)) design " its element of ≡ " SoJ (dis (y.i)) ":: the={ I.CT} of ruling dis (y.i)

And further

(g) " BID-AC design " ≡ it comprise PTR ^cTaC,

(h) " SoQCC (Y) design " its element of ≡ " QCC (Y) ": :=qcc (y): :={ Q-CC|Y/mod (Q-CC) antstT.0}},

(i) " SoJ (qcc (y)) design " its element of ≡ " J (qcc (y)) ": :=I.CT} of ruling qcc (y),

(j) " SoARGC (T) design " ≡ it comprise the demonstration chain of execution about test T, any chain is limited to only to comprise and specifically gathers as link for T from (a) to (i), described link is bonded together by natural language fragment

(k) " SoAccess design " ≡ it comprise at least one q/a provision, it guaranteed in 1 second

K () .1 is taking PTR ^cTthe item generated in (a) to (j) is distinguished in any inquiry of the given query language of-DS,

K () .2 transfers described item and is presented on the PTR that user can determine ^cTin the expression of-DS.

13. devices according to claim 12, wherein, for all dis (y) and the J (dis (y)) of Y, following relation is set up, they comprise, and { all doc.0-MUI} of open Y are { all doc.CT-MUI} of ruling dis (y) respectively.

14. devices according to claim 12, wherein, PTR ^cT-DS comprises all SoJ (qcc (AC)) design of conceiving about all BID-AC.

15. devices according to claim 11, wherein, due to user interactions the change increased progressively of item that performs cause its restart, the PTR generated before this change can be reused ^cTa part of-DS.

16. devices according to claim 11, wherein, PTR ^cT-DS is implemented as one or several data objects in one or several computer systems.

17. devices according to claim 11, wherein, user can based on different document .CT at any time at some PTR ^cTchange between-DS.

18. device according to claim 11, wherein, PTR is generated ^cTat least one given function normally alternatively performed of-DS is performed automatically.

19. devices according to claim 11, wherein, PTR ^cTuser-defined " the secondary fact of technology " item of TT.0 can be introduced in PTR ^cTduring-DS generates, as extra item.

20. devices according to claim 11, wherein, the PTR generated ^cTthe provision of the scope of the pattern that-DS comprises for monitoring, charging and report use it to conceive.

21. devices according to claim 11, wherein, can carry out the identification of acoustics word for given keyword set and provide the graphical feedback of the hit declared about it.

22. 1 kinds of devices, use PTR ^cT-DS, even if by the data structure of Practical computer teaching, described data structure storage is on the tangible medium being connected to described device and can be read by described computing machine, and described data structure is based on given PTR ^cTpart and comprise this part, described device can by means of the provision provided for this purpose by it, from the PTR of its definition ^cTgathering information item in-DS, thus comprise step

A () reads given keyword set from the input equipment being connected to this device;

B () is created as keyword described in any one and tackles a described item;

C () distinguishes any one described in keyword in the presenting of described device user on its input interface;

D () transfers the duplicate of the item of tackling about (b) by described keyword, and described duplicate is delivered to the output device be connected with this device, for presenting to described user;

E () performed step (c) and (d) in 1 second.

23. devices according to claim 22, wherein, its input equipment and output device are input equipment and the output device of PC, or can be connected to PC.

24. devices according to claim 22, wherein, the figure of input equipment and/or output device and/or sound capabilities can be configured by user.

25. devices according to claim 22, wherein, described device can be configured to gather hiding PTR for given user ^cTpartial information item on-DS.

26. devices according to claim 22, wherein, described device can for given user's set to PTR ^cTpartial information item on-DS adds information.

27. device according to claim 22, wherein, for PTR ^cTthe PTR of-DS bottom ^cTdoc.0 disclosed in BID-cr-C, and for PTR ^cTtT.i, 1≤i≤I, described item comprise allegedly show their expections or do not expect described BID-cr-C, for the set of the list of references of doc.i-MUI.

28. device according to claim 22, wherein, for PTR ^cTthe PTR of-DS bottom ^cTdoc.0 disclosed in BID-cr-C, and for PTR ^cTtT.i, 1≤i≤I, described item comprise allegedly show their expections or do not expect described BID-cr-C, for the set of the list of references of doc.i-MUI, described PTR ^cTthe set of I.CT item, this statement is decided in being connected on of described set legally.

29. devices according to claim 22, wherein, a described item comprises statement, and described statement is expressed: for PTR ^cTthe PTR of-DS bottom ^cTdoc.0 disclosed in BID-cr-C, and for PTR ^cTany TT.i, this TT.i expects or does not expect described BID-cr-C.

30. devices according to claim 22, wherein, for by described PTR ^cTthat-DS provides and selected by user or described PTR defined by the user ^cTtest T, wherein said PTR ^cTallegedly pass through or do not pass through this T, a described item comprises described PTR ^cTthe set of I.CT item, this statement is decided in being connected on of described set legally.