進步性審查之正確態度 Proper Attitude to Examine the Inventive Step

審查發明專利的新穎性，是觀察先前技術的「單一」實施例是否揭露該發明的全部特徵。這種觀察是很客觀的。	To examine the novelty of an invention patent is to observe whether a "single" embodiment of prior art discloses all features of the invention. Such observation is objective.
審查發明專利的進步性，是揣摩先前技術的「複數」實施例的結合是否完成該發明的全部特徵及全部功效。這種揣摩是很主觀的。	To examine the inventive step of an invention patent is to imagine whether a combination of "plural" embodiments of prior art discloses all features and all effects of the invention. Such imagination is subjective.
我們知道，任何主觀的論述都見仁見智，不可能完全服人。因此，無論怎麼修正進步性的審查基準，意圖讓審查看起來很有原則，終究是徒勞無功的。	We know that, every subjective discussion is debatable, and is impossible to persuade everyone. Therefore, it will be eventually futile to amend the examination guideline of the inventive step to make a principled examination.
科學技術人員應該自豪於實事求是的態度，強調客觀的觀察，避免主觀的揣摩。因此，專利審查品質，以可否檢索出「單一」的準確引證文件為斷。	A scientific technical person shall be proud of his down-to-earth attitude, emphasizing objective observation, avoiding subjective imagination. Therefore, the patent examination quality is determined by the ability to search out a "single" accurate cited document.

發明進步性之認定原則 The Principle to Deem the Inventive Step of an Invention

發見發明為數引證之數技術特徵之結合，尚不足以謂能輕易完成之；惟若該發明明示之功効亦已揭露於該數引證時，殊難再倡對人類之技術有何貢獻，彀認為不具進步性。

If we find out that, an invention is a combination of several technical characters in several evidences, we are still insufficient to say it is easy to complete the invention; while if the clearly indicated effects of the invention are also disclosed in the evidences, we are yet difficult to think of its contribution for human technique, thus sufficient to conclude that, it lacks of an inventive step.

又申請人不明示發明之功效，而申辯該功效係實質上隱含者，如為直接且無歧異可得知者，既屬常識，何言進步之有？如否焉者，莫非意圖隱瞞技術之真實，職於是處大眾之利益，對其為否定之評價，自無可指摘之處。

Furthermore, in case that an application does not clearly indicate the effects of an invention, and argues that, the effect are substantially implicated, if the effects can be directly and unambiguously known, since they must be common sense, nowhere comes its inventive step; else if they cannot be directly and unambiguously known, it is reasonable to suspect that, the applicant must have intended to conceal the real technique, in order to obstruct the public to learn his technique, it is proper for us to make a negative evaluation for the invention.