[Case Summary]

Our client Yiwu *** Outdoor Products Co., LTD. 's competitor filed a request for invalidation of the new patent application number: 20212***9242.X, patent name: Inflatable cushion, and cited five patent documents as evidence to deny the creativity of claim 1-9, and requested the State Intellectual Property Office to declare all the patents involved invalid. 

[Course of the case]

Our patent attorney drew up the outline of the trial and elaborated to the State Intellectual Property Office in the oral trial the evidence cited by the claimant did not disclose the technical characteristics of the cavity in one area of the patent claim 1 and the air cavity in the other area, nor did it solve the technical problems of convenient portability and high comfort. Therefore, claim 1 has substantive characteristics and progress relative to the evidence, and has the creativity stipulated in Article 22, paragraph 3 of the Patent Law.

Patent in question

Exhibit 1

After review by the collegiate group, it was determined that:

The technical solution of the patent is that the inflatable cushion is set up in two areas at the same time, one area is placed sponge, to ensure comfort, and the other area is set as an inflatable cavity, which can be conveniently stored, and the problem that an inflatable cushion is convenient to carry and high comfort is solved through the overall technical solution. The technical solution is a whole and inseparable. The comparison file 1 and 3 are two inflatable cushions with the same functional area, which can solve the problem of convenient storage. The comparison file 2 is a detachable foot warmer mattress set in four different functional areas respectively, which does not disclose the complete technical scheme of the patent, and there is no evidence that the setting way of the patent scheme belongs to the common sense. The patent realizes the technical effect of both convenient to carry and high comfort.

The final decision is to maintain the validity of the utility model patent No. 20212***9242.X.

[summary]

If a claim has a distinctive technical feature from the nearest prior art, and the distinctive technical feature has not been disclosed by other prior art, nor is it in the public knowledge of the field, and the said distinctive technical feature has a beneficial technical effect, the claim has substantial characteristics and progress, and has the creativity provided for in Article 22, paragraph 3, of the Patent Law.

With a decision