Abstract
The inventiveness judgment standard of a patent application is attributed to whether it is “non-obvious” to a certain extent, while the non-obviousness judgment of a patent application is attributed to whether the prior art has technical implications for the solution. However, at present, my country’s identification standards for technical inspiration are not perfect, which of-ten cause great controversy in practice. The abuse of the two grounds for rejection of “commonly used technical means in this field” and “common knowledge” should be restricted, the range of knowledge and ability of the subject of judgment in different technical fields should be set in a targeted manner, and guidelines for typical issues related to the identification of technical revelations should be established, so that standards for identification of technical inspiration tend to be perfected.

This publication has 1 reference indexed in Scilit: