Taiwan: New guidelines on examination of inventive step
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Taiwan: New guidelines on examination of inventive step

To further improve examination quality, the Taiwan IP Office (TIPO) recently amended the examination guidelines regarding inventive step, among other changes. The new guidelines were implemented on July 1 2017.

According to the new guidelines, in determining whether an invention possesses inventive step over the prior art, the examiner should first conduct a search to locate all relevant prior art references and then choose one prior art reference from all the references as the primary reference. In the event that there is no teaching, suggestion or motivation to render the combination of the primary reference with the other references to be obvious, the invention shall not be rejected for being devoid of inventive step.

When considering the obviousness of the combination, the examiner should evaluate if the primary reference and the other references are in analogous fields of art and if they have common problems to be solved as well as serve the same or similar intended purpose. Only if it is found that the located references can be combined in an obvious manner shall the examiner continue with the examination of the invention to determine whether or not to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. In this context, the examiner must examine, among other parameters, the references against the claimed invention to decide if the primary reference alone, or in combination with the other references, may teach away from the claimed invention and whether the claimed invention can indeed achieve unexpected meritorious advantageous over the prior art.

In addition, when a claimed invention is rejected for the reason that it would have been "well within the ordinary skill of the art at the time of filing", the examiner must provide evidence or detailed explanations at least.

Chiu-ling Lin


Saint Island International Patent & Law Offices7th Floor, No. 248, Section 3Nanking East RoadTaipei 105-45, Taiwan, ROCTel: +886 2 2775 1823Fax: +886 2 2731 6377siiplo@mail.saint-island.com.twwww.saint-island.com.tw

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Practitioners analyse a survey on how law firms prove value to their clients and reflect on why the concept can be hard to pin down
Gift this article