【The main takeaway of the trial】

The inventive step of a patent technical solution can derive from "solution to problems" or "raising of questions"; when the technical progress have difficulty in finding problems, if not consider whether the "raising of questions " is obvious or not for those of ordinary skill in the art, it will be caught in hindsight and the inventive step of the technical solution will be underestimated.

【Case Introduction】

The CNIPA made the No. 38122 Invalidation Request Examination Decision (hereinafter referred to as the “sued decision”), announcing that claims 1 and 6 of the utility model patent with its patent number ZL201520653490.5 and name of "Yuntai" are invalid, and the patent maintains valid based on claims 2-5 and 7-18.

DJI refused to accept the sued decision, claiming that this patent has found and solved technical problems that were not noticed in the prior art, and achieved beneficial technical effects, it has involved inventive step.

In accordance with the technical solutions of claims 1 and 6, the proposed PTZ uses the locking structure provided on the pitch axis structure or the roll axis structure to prevent the motor on the pitch axis structure or the roll axis structure to prevent the electric motor on the pitch axis structure or the roll axis structure randomly rotating in the non-working state of PTZ, whereby securing the fixation of determined position when the PTZ is out of service. The ingenious design of the structure above described solves the problem of that the PTZ in the prior art cannot be fixed or the structure is complex in the non-working state, accordingly making it easy for its storage and for users to carry and use.

The technical means described above did not disclose any technical information or in other ways in public before this patent was published. Therefore, claims 1 and 6 of this patent involves novelty and inventive step. The Supreme People's Court ruled on September 25, 2020 to dismiss the appeal and uphold the original judgment.

【Typical meaning】

The second instance of the Supreme People's Court held that whether that raising new technical problems or finding technical defects in the prior art should be considered in the creative judgment needs to be determined according to the specific case.

In the majority of cases, raising technical problems and discovering that are the motivation and starting point of invention and creation, and the formation of technical solutions for invention has a direct cause-and-effect relationship with the "raising of questions".

In most cases, it is easier to "raise a question" and "find a problem", but it is relatively difficult to find a technical solution to the problem.

However, "raising a question " and "finding a problem" may be more important than "solving a problem" in some specific situations.

Sometimes, the difficulty of technological progress lies in finding problems. Once the problem to be solved is determined, we can obtain technical solutions to solve technical problems through methods including a combination of conventional technical means in the field, technology transfer between similar technical fields, logical technical deduction, limited trials, etc.

In this particular case, the lack of consideration that "whether the' raising of problem' is obvious for an ordinary skilled in the art" in the judgment process of inventive step may cause hindsight in the creative judgment.

In this case, though this patent raise the specific technical question of " the locking of motor shaft of the PTZ in the non-working state", when the PTZ is in the "non-working state" outside the range of the electrical motor adjustment angle, the defects that "randomly swinging, inconvenient to keep, carry and use" of this type of PTZ are obvious and can be found directly. When the ordinary skilled in the art  or even users of PTZ face with the defect, they will naturally come up with that it is caused by the technical problem that the PTZ cannot be locked in the "non-working state" .

Therefore, the technical problem that “been found and solved by the patent and not been noticed in the prior art” claimed by DJI, that is, the “locking of the electrical motor shaft of the PTZ in a non-working state” does not involve obviousness. In the judgment of inventive step of the patent in this case, only in terms of the "raising of questions", it should be determined that the prior art has given corresponding technical enlightenment.

From The Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court

August 13th, 2021