对obviousness概念的理解远比tying艰深得多。它的字面含义并不难,但其法律含义却有难以理解的丰富内涵。下面通过Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996) 对obvious的释义来了解obviousness含义:
obvious adj. Easily seen, discovered, or understood; specif Readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in a particular art considering the scope and content of the prior art see also patent
- An invention that is found to be obvious cannot be patented.
obvious·ness n.
上述释义的前部分为普通意义,理解无难点可言,而后部分则包含了知识产权中专利法的含义。它表示的实质意义是:如果某项技术和已有技术相比在技术含量上很普通,它就是显而易见的。专利法中专利授权的条件有三个,即新颖性、创造性和实用性。如果某项技术缺乏突出的实质性特点,那就是缺少创造性,就是显而易见的。这就是obvious或obviousness的真正含义所在,即创造性的反义——非创造性。结合上述释义后的例句(An invention that is found to be obvious cannot be patented.),可以得出结论:一项发明如果是显而易见的或非创造性的,就不能授予专利权。Klett Rooney Lieber & Schorling法律事务公司网站刊登了题为Avoid “Obviousness”: How to Defend against a Claim That Your Patent Is Invalid because Someone Else Thought of It First的文章。仅从该文的标题就可以清晰可辨地看出obviousness的法律含义。其实,这一概念早已被我国接受,而且在普通的知识产权法教材中时常提及。例如:“从专利史上看,1936年经过修改的美国专利法第一次提出了新颖性、创造性(非易见性)和实用性作为发明获得专利权的必备条件。自此以后,“三性”标准迅速地被各国专利法所采纳。现在,任何国家的专利法都将新颖性、创造性和实用性规定为发明获得专利的条件。我国专利法第二十二条规定:授予专利发明和实用新型,应具备新颖性、创造性和实用性。”(王登霄,1994:123)再如:“创造性不仅要求申请专利的发明或者实用新型是新的,前所未有的,而且要求在技术上有所创新,有所进步。换句话说,申请专利的发明创造与现有技术之间必须有一段实质性的,有意义的距离,即该申请与以前已经存在的任何东西都不相同。此外,这种距离或者差别是‘非显而易见’的或者意想不到的。”(张建申,1994:173) 令人遗憾的是,我们在继受国外法律的同时没有重视英文法律专门术语的研究,结果出现不可译现象。
综上所述,obviousness可译为“易见性”或“非创造性”。那末,law of obviousness即“易见性法律”或“非创造性法律”。
最后,再对专利法中专利授权的三个条件(新颖性、创造性、实用性)英文专门术语表达法再进行一些分析。“新颖性”和“实用性”的英文术语表达美国和欧洲是一致的,分别用novelty和utility表示,也可用novel和useful表示形容词概念。然而,我国的英文通译与此译存在不一致的译法。对于“新颖性”,我国的通译有两个:novelty和characteristics of novelty。第一种译法没问题,但第二种译法太繁琐,有画蛇添足之嫌,也不符合英文表达习惯。对于“实用性”,我国的通译是usefulness。这显然不符合表达习惯。关于“创造性”的英文术语表达,美国和欧洲是不一致的。美国用non-obviousness(非易见性)表示,而欧洲用inventive step表示。例如,《美国法典》(U.S.C.)就有专门对non-obviousness解释的条款:A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described ... , if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.该条款用obvious表示“易见性”概念。而欧洲专利条约(E.P.C.)则有专门对inventive step的条款:An invention shall be considered as involving an inventive step if, having regard to the state of the art, it is not obvious to a person skilled in the art.在该条款中,“创造性”用inventive step表示。再如,华盛顿大学法学院知识产权高级研究中心(University of Washington School of Law CASRIP)网上刊登的一篇论文Assessment of Inventive Step or Obviousness in the United States, Europe, and Japan非常谨慎与清晰地用不同的术语表示不同国家与地区的法律概念。下面摘录两句作为佐证:
1. Europe, Japan, and the United States have different standards for assessment of inventive step, as it is called in Europe and Japan, or obviousness, as it is called in the United States.
2. Some of the similarities for determining inventive step/obviousness in the U.S., and Europe, and Japan are highlighted in Table 1.
我国对“创造性”的英文通译为inventiveness和creativity。从英文和中文的用词看,表达倒是对等的,但是不符合英文法律用词习惯。(以上有关我国的译法均源自《中华人民共和国法律法规汉英对照词语手册》)我国的法律体系受大陆法系的影响很大,清朝还曾通过日本继受德国民法,在此建议我国专利法的英文版本用inventive step表示“创造性”。
通过上述解析,正好印证了这样一个原理:概念是全人类的,而名称则因语种的不同而不同,具有民族性(冯志伟,1997:19)。