The Patent Re-examination Board of the State Intellectual Property Office issued an examination decision on the request for invalidation in response to the request for invalidation against the patent no. 201020697438.7 of Xiamen Set Electronics Co., Ltd. submitted by Anhui Changsheng Electronics Co., Ltd. on 14 December 2016. In the present case, ZHANG, Yinying, attorney, and ZHANG, Xiaoming, patent agent from Liu Shen & Associates were representatives of the patentee (Xiamen Set Electronics Co., Ltd.).
08 June 2016, Anhui Changsheng Electronics Co., Ltd. submitted a request for invalidation against the patent No. 201020697438.7, entitled “Device combining a thermal fuse and a resistor” of Xiamen Set Electronics Co., Ltd. This request for invalidation is the second request submitted by the petitioner of a request for invalidation against the above-mentioned patent. Based on the technical features distinguishing the invention confirmed in the first examination decision on the request for invalidation from relevant evidences, the petitioner of a request for invalidation pointedly submitted newly closer evidences.
The Patent Re-examination Board held the oral proceeding for this case on 24 November 2016. During the proceeding, the attorney ZHANG, Yinying and the patent agent ZHANG, Xiaoming from Liu Shen & Associates, as representatives of the patentee, fiercely debated with representatives of the petitioner of a request for invalidation and demonstrated in court physical samples that directly prove clear technical differences between the invention and the new evidences to the Board.
Upon examination, the Patent Re-examination Board fully supported the observations from the patentee regarding the validity of the present patent, and declared that the validity of the present patent was fully valid. What is more important is that, comparing with the distinguishing technical features confirmed in the first examination decision on the request for invalidation, the Patent Re-examination Board gave the relevant distinguishing technical features a clearer confirmation and a more sufficient interpretation.
The sample demonstration in this patent invalidation case plays a key role in the confirmation of the distinguishing technical features between the technical solution of the present patent and the evidences. Moreover, the clearer confirmation and sufficient interpretation given on the same evidence by the Patent Re-examination Board bear positive significance for patent invalidation cases on the same patent.