理解美国判例法和联邦法院系统-美国审查员培训资料(上) | 每日IP英文043
这是大岭为您分享IP英文的第43天： 一份美国专利审查员的培训资料——理解判例法和联邦法院系统。
美国的专利审查员经常会遇到专利代理人在回复审查意见时，引用美国判例法的情形。由于大部分审查员并没有法律背景，所以他们也不知道该如何回复这些意见。因此，USPTO组织了一系列培训。
今天分享的内容是这一系列培训的第一部分：理解判例法和联邦法院系统，主要针对和专利相关的判例法和联邦法院系统进行介绍。
你是否也对下列这些问题感到困惑？
美国判例法与成文的专利法如何应用？
美国各级法院如何审理专利案件？又如何形成判例法？
什么叫“全席审理”（en banc）？
In re Kubin， Bilski v. Kappos， KSR v. Teleflex，这些判例的名称代表什么？
上级法院对下级法院判决中对法律问题和事实问题的认定，都可以不用遵从吗？
判例该如何引用？
去哪里检索判例？
判例对答复审查意见有什么帮助？
这些都是美国判例法的常见问题，而这份培训资料给这些问题都提供了很好的解答。
培训提供了网络视频，网址为：
https://www.uspto.gov/video/cbt/rspnd-lglargmnts/index.htm
但是需要在电脑端，才能观看。
由于这份资料非常的实用，所以我对视频进行了截屏，并对讲解内容进行了翻译，供大家参考。
Patent examiners frequently receive replies toOffice actions that include citations of case law. Yet most examiners are not attorneys. They may be unfamiliar with the impact ofcase law on their job as patent examiners. This CBT is part I of a two-part examiner training course. Part I is designed to familiarize you withthe federal court system and the kinds of case law that are relevant to thepatentability determinations that you make every day. Part II is an interactive workshop-stylesession that will provide practical strategies for writing a clear response toattorney arguments that are based on case law.
专利审查员经常收到对审查意见的答复，其中包括对判例法的引用。然而，大多数审查员不是律师。他们可能不熟悉判例法对其作为专利审查员的工作的影响。本CBT(Computer Based Training)是这次审查员培训课程两部分中的第一部分。第一部分旨在让您熟悉联邦法院系统以及与您每天所做的可专利性确定相关的判例法。第二部分是一个互动的研讨会式会议，将提供切实可行的策略，以便对律师基于判例法的争辩做出明确的回应。
This training is intended to be a review orrefresher of your understanding of case law and the Federal Court system.The training objectives slide and the one that follows talk about what youcan expect from this CBT.This CBT is intended toachieve three objectives.First, you should gain a betterunderstanding of the legal authority for patents in the United States.Second, you will become familiar with how the patentability decisions youmake are reviewed. The review processwill differ somewhat depending on whether you have rejected or allowed theclaims. Finally,you will recognize that the MPEP is an important resource, and should be yourfirst stop when faced with responding to an attorney argument that involvescase law.
本培训旨在对您对判例法和联邦法院系统的理解进行审查或复习。培训目标幻灯片和后面的一页，都在谈论您可以期望从本次CBT培训中得到什么。本CBT旨在实现三个目标。首先，您应该更好地了解美国的有关专利的司法机构。其次，您将熟悉如何审查您所做的可专利性意见。根据您是否拒绝或允许权利要求，审查流程会有所不同。最后，您将认识到审查指南MPEP是一个重要的资源，并且它应该是您在面对回复涉及判例法的律师论点时的第一站。
We also want to be clear about what this CBT is notintended to do. First, you are not being asked to do legal research, other than to reviewthe MPEP and other USPTO resources forguidance about case law. Second, although this CBT provides an overview of the federal court systemand case law as it relates to the patent examiner’s job, it is not intended tobe a comprehensive treatment of this far-ranging topic. Finally, this Part I trainingis about understanding case law and the federal courts. In the follow-up Part II training we willdiscuss how examiners should respond to attorney arguments. Although the cases cited and the examplesdiscussed will necessarily involve specific statutes, neither Part I nor PartII is designed to train examiners how to write rejections under any particularsection of the statute. Furthermore,this training will not address technical questions that are specific toparticular art areas.
我们还希望明确这个CBT不打算做什么。首先，除了回顾MPEP和其他USPTO资源以获取有关判例法的指导之外，您不会被要求进行法律研究。其次，尽管该CBT提供了与专利审查员工作相关的联邦法院系统和判例法的概述，但并不打算对这一广泛的主题进行综合讨论。最后，第一部分培训是关于理解判例法和联邦法院。在后续的第二部分培训中，我们将讨论审查员应如何回应律师的论点。虽然所引用的案例和所讨论的案例必然涉及具体的法规，但第一部分和第二部分都不是旨在培训审查员如何在法规的任何特定部分规定下撰写驳回决定。此外，本培训不涉及特定技术领域的技术问题。
To accomplish the objectives for this training,we’ll consider these topics: Patents and the U.S. Legal System; Legal Review of Patents; Case Law Citations and How toRetrieve Cases. By way of conclusion, we’ll provide some take-awaymessages for examiners.
为了实现这一培训的目标，我们将考虑以下主题：专利和美国法律体系; 专利的法律审查;判例法引用及判例检索方法。最后，我们将为审查员提供一些提示信息。
We’ll begin now with our first topic, Patents andthe U.S. Legal System.
我们现在开始讨论第一个主题，即专利和美国法律体系。
The Constitution itself gives Congress theauthority to create both a copyright system and a patent system in article I,section 8, clause 8. Congress has the power “to promote the progress of science and useful arts,by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right totheir respective writings and discoveries.” Note the parallel structure employed by the drafter of this constitutionalprovision. “Science,” “authors,” and“writings” refer to the copyright system. “Useful arts,” “inventors,” and “discoveries” refer to the patentsystem. All threebranches of government established by the Constitution have an impact on patentlaw. As the legislative branch, Congresspasses the laws that govern the patent system. The USPTO, as part of the executive branch, implements the patent lawspassed by Congress. The federal courtsof the judicial branch review the laws passed by Congress and the regulationspromulgated by the USPTO to implement the laws, and can also resolve disputesbetween parties.
“宪法”本身在第I章第8节第8条中赋予国会建立版权制度和专利制度的权力。国会拥有“通过对作家和发明者的著作和发明，在一定期限内给予排他权利，以促进科学和实用技艺的进步”的权力。请注意本宪法条款的起草人采用的平行结构。“科学”，“作者”和“著作”是指版权制度。“实用技艺”，“发明者”和“发明”指的是专利制度。宪法规定的政府的三个部门都对专利法产生影响。作为立法部门，国会通过了管辖专利制度的法律。美国专利商标局作为行政部门的一部分，执行国会通过的专利法。司法部门的联邦法院审查国会通过的法律和美国专利商标局颁布的实施法律的规定，也可以解决当事人之间的争议。
This CBT focuses on the federal court systembecause all patent law in the United States is federal law. Individual states do not have their ownpatent laws. Any legal action involvingpatent rights must be brought in federal court, not state court. Federal courts include theSupreme Court, the appellate courts, and the district courts. There are eleven regional circuit courts ofappeal that serve distinct geographical areas of the United States. Two other appellate courts – the Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit – have nationwide jurisdiction as to certain subjectmatter. Finally, there are ninety-fourfederal district courts which also serve particular geographic areas.
本CBT侧重于联邦法院系统，因为美国的所有专利法都是联邦法。各州没有自己的专利法。涉及专利权的任何法律诉讼必须提交联邦法院，而不是州法院。联邦法院包括最高法院，上诉法院和地区法院。有11个区域巡回上诉法院服务于美国不同的地理区域。另外两个上诉法院- 哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院和联邦巡回上诉法院- 对某些主题拥有全国管辖权。最后，有94个联邦地区法院也服务于特定的地理区域。
Aside from the Supreme Court, the Court of Appealsfor the Federal Circuit is the most important court for patent law. You’ll often hear this court referred to asthe “Federal Circuit,” or even “Fed. Cir.” or “CAFC.” The Federal Circuit hasexisted since 1982. It is a court ofnationwide jurisdiction for appeals that arise under the patent laws. The Federal Circuit can hear appeals fromdecisions of the USPTO, such as Patent Trial and Appeal Board, (or PTAB)decisions affirming an examiner’s rejection. It can also hear appeals from district court decisions, such as thoseinvolving patent infringement. The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, or CCPA, no longer exists, but itscases are still important because before 1982 it had exclusive jurisdictionover appeals from USPTO decisions. Inthis way the CCPA was like the Federal Circuit. However, unlike the Federal Circuit, the CCPA did not hear appeals ofinfringement or other district court decisions. Instead, those appeals went to one of the eleven regional circuit courtsof appeals.
除最高法院外，联邦巡回上诉法院是专利法最重要的法院。你会经常听到这个被称为“联邦巡回法院”的法庭，甚至是“Fed. Cir.”或“CAFC.”。“联邦巡回法院自1982年以来一直存在。它是对根据专利法提起的上诉具有全国司法管辖权的法院。联邦巡回法院可以审理对USPTO决定的上诉，例如专利审理和上诉委员会（或PTAB）的决定，确认审查员的驳回。它还可以审理对地区法院判决的上诉，例如涉及专利侵权的上诉。海关和专利上诉法院（CCPA）已不复存在，但其案件仍然很重要，因为在1982年之前它对USPTO决定的上诉拥有专属管辖权。通过这种方式，CCPA就像联邦巡回法院一样。但是，与联邦巡回法院不同，CCPA没有审理对侵权诉讼或其他地区法院判决的上诉。相反，这些上诉去往了11个地区巡回上诉法院之一。
We’ll move now to our second topic, Legal Review ofPatents.
我们现在转到第二个主题“专利的法律审查”。
This slide provides a schematic showing how apatent application that is twice rejected by the examiner can be reviewed bythe PTAB and the federal courts. It’simportant because it shows the pathway that leads to the courts that decide thecases that influence how examiners do their job. The flow chart begins with the patentapplication in the red box. You are familiar with review of a patent examiner’s rejection on appeal tothe PTAB. If the PTAB affirms theexaminer’s decision, then there are two choices. The first option is that the PTAB’s decision canbe appealed directly to the Federal Circuit. The second option is that a civil action can be brought in districtcourt; that civil action can then be followed by an appeal to the FederalCircuit. A party who is unsatisfied withthe Federal Circuit’s decision may ask the Supreme Court to hear the case byfiling a petition for certiorari. Notethat the patent examiner’s decision may be only three steps away from theSupreme Court!
本幻灯片提供了一个示意图，说明了PTAB和联邦法院如何审查被审查员两次驳回的专利申请。这很重要，因为它显示了这些案件通往的法院的途径，法院对案件做出判决并因此影响了审查员的工作方式。该流程图以红色框中的专利申请开始。您熟悉PTAB对专利审查员的驳回的上诉的审查。如果PTAB确认审查员的决定，那么有两种选择。第一种选择是可以对PTAB的决定直接向联邦巡回法院上诉。第二种选择是可以在地区法院提起民事诉讼；然后民事诉讼可以向联邦巡回法院上诉。对联邦巡回法院的判决不满意的一方可以通过提交一份申请来要求最高法院来审理案件。请注意，专利审查员的决定可能距离最高法院只有三步之遥！
This slide is similar to the previous slide, but itinvolves review of issued patents. Here,the flow chart begins with the issued patent in the red box. You’ll note thatthe review pathways for issued patents are somewhat more complex than those forrejected applications. However, you canfocus on the big picture. Since the passage of the AIA, an issued patent can be reviewed under one ofthe PTAB trial procedures that we mentioned earlier. Alternatively, a patent can be the subject ofan action in district court. Forexample, a patentee can enforce his or her rights against an infringer. Both PTAB and district court decisions can beappealed to the Federal Circuit. FederalCircuit decisions can be the subject of a petition for certiorari that requestsSupreme Court review of the Federal Circuit’s decision.
此幻灯片类似于上一张幻灯片，但它涉及对已授权专利的审查。这里，流程图以红色框中的已授权专利开始。您会注意到，已授权专利的审理途径比驳回申请的审理途径要复杂一些。但是，你可以专注于大局。自美国发明法案AIA通过以来，可以根据我们之前提到的PTAB审查程序之一审查已授权的专利。或者，专利可以成为地区法院诉讼的主体。例如，专利权人可以对侵权人行使自己的权利。PTAB和地区法院的决定都可以向联邦巡回法院上诉。联邦巡回法院的判决可以成为请求最高法院审查联邦巡回法院判决的主题。
Patent matters brought before the PTAB or a federalcourt must be decided in accordance with the applicable laws andregulations. The Constitution is themost authoritative legal document. Belowthe Constitution in the hierarchy of legal authority are the federalstatutes. Finally, federal regulationspromulgated by agencies to implement the statutes are at the bottom of thepyramid. Both federal statutes andfederal regulations may be challenged in court.
提交给PTAB或联邦法院的专利事宜必须根据适用的法律法规来决定。宪法是最权威的法律文件。在法律效力等级中宪法下面是联邦法律。最后，各机构颁布的实施法律的联邦法规位于金字塔底层。联邦法律和联邦法规都可能在法庭上受到质疑。
We have seen that there is a hierarchy of legalauthority that must be followed when deciding questions of patent law. There is also a hierarchy of courts. The Supreme Court is at the top of thepyramid. Next come the circuit courts ofappeals. The slide shows the FederalCircuit because, as we have already noted, the Federal Circuit hears allappeals that concern patent matters. Thedistrict courts come at the bottom of the pyramid below the FederalCircuit.
我们已经看到，在决定专利法问题时必须遵循法律效力的等级制度。 法院也有等级制度。 最高法院位于金字塔顶端。 接下来是巡回上诉法庭。 幻灯片显示了联邦巡回法院，因为正如我们已经指出的那样，联邦巡回法院审理所有涉及专利问题的上诉。 地区法院位于联邦巡回法院下方，在金字塔的底部。
You have probably heard the term “precedential”with regard to certain court decisions. Case law is called “precedential” when its holding must be followed inother cases that involve similar issues or facts. Supreme Court decisions arealways precedential, and lower tribunals including the Federal Circuit, thedistrict courts, and the PTAB, must follow them.
你可能听说过某些法院判决中的“先例”一词。判例法被称为“先例”，涉及类似问题或事实的其他案件必须遵守判例法。最高法院的判决总是先行的，包括联邦巡回法院，地区法院和PTAB在内的下级法庭必须遵守它们。
Appeals at the Federal Circuit are usually decidedby a panel of three judges. However,sometimes all of the judges on the court sit together to decide a case. This is called an en banc decision. A three-judge panel must treat a decision of an earlier three-judge panelas precedential, and may not overrule it. The Federal Circuit must sit en banc in order to overrule a paneldecision. Thus, if a later FederalCircuit panel decision were to conflict with an earlier one, the earlierdecision would control. Finally, whenthe Federal Circuit sits en banc, it can overrule its own earlier en bancdecisions. The important point toremember is that it always takes an en banc decision to overrule any earlierdecision.
联邦巡回法院的上诉案件通常由三名法官组成的合议庭判决。 但是，有时法庭上的所有法官都坐在一起决定案件。 这被称为“全席审理”（en banc）判决。 三名法官合议庭必须将先前三名法官合议庭的判决视为先例，并且不得否决它。 联邦巡回法院必须“全席审理”（en banc），才能否决合议庭的判决。 因此，如果后来的联邦巡回法院合议庭判决与之前的判决发生冲突，那么先前的判决将会限制。 最后，当联邦巡回法院“全席审理”（en banc）时，它可以否决其早先的判决。 要记住的重要一点是，它总是需要一个“全席审理”（en banc）判决来否决任何早先的判决。
The Federal Circuit has chosen to adopt CCPAdecisions as precedent that must be followed. Thus, CCPA decisions are precedential and may be cited unless they havebeen overruled. Unlike the Federal Circuit, the CCPA sat en banc for all of itsdecisions. That means that later CCPAdecisions are effective to overrule earlier CCPA decisions. We noted on the previous slidethat the en banc Federal Circuit can overrule its own prior en bancdecisions. Similarly, the en banc FederalCircuit can overrule decisions of the CCPA.
联邦巡回法院选择采用CCPA决定作为必须遵循的先例。因此，CCPA的决定是先行的，除非被推翻，否则可以引用。与联邦巡回法院不同，CCPA对其所有决定都采取“全席审理”（en banc）。这意味着后来的CCPA决定有效地推翻了早期的CCPA决定。我们在上一张幻灯片中指出，联邦巡回法院“全席审理”（en banc）可以否决其先前的“全席审理”（en banc）判决。同样，联邦巡回法院“全席审理”（en banc）可以否决CCPA的决定。
Decisions cited by attorneys in their replies toOffice actions most often come from the Supreme Court or the FederalCircuit. Because only precedentialdecisions must be followed in later cases, it is not common for attorneys tocite non-precedential court decisions. For example, district court decisions are not controlling precedent asto any other case, so they are not often cited in attorney replies to Officeactions. Sometimesattorneys cite PTAB decisions in response to Office actions. PTAB decisions can be important for theirpersuasive value if the facts and legal issues are similar to those in yourcase. However, they do not have theprecedential authority of Supreme Court or Federal Circuit decisions.
律师在对审查意见的答复中引用的判决通常来自最高法院或联邦巡回法院。因为在以后的案件中只能遵循先行判决，所以律师引用非先例法院判决并不常见。例如，地区法院的裁决并不控制任何其他案件的先例，因此律师对办事处行为的答复通常不会引用这些案件。有时，律师会引用PTAB的判决来回应Office的行为。如果事实和法律问题与您案件中的相似，则PTAB决策对其具有说服力的价值非常重要。但是，他们没有最高法院或联邦巡回法院判决的先例权力。
You can a learn lot about a legal decision justfrom its name. A patent case called Ex parte Applicant was decided by PTAB or an earlierUSPTO Board. If a patent case is called In re Applicant, it was decided by the FederalCircuit on appeal from a decision of the PTAB.Some casesname two parties. If one of them is acurrent or former USPTO Director (either Applicant v. Director of USPTO orDirector of USPTO v. Applicant) then the case is either a Federal Circuitdecision arising from a suit against the USPTO in district court, or SupremeCourt decision following an In re Applicant decision from the Federal Circuit. Finally, a two-party case name in which neither is the Director of theUSPTO arises from a suit between two private parties. For example, it may be an infringement actionbrought in district court, or a PTAB trial proceeding. A Party A v. Party B case may be decided bythe PTAB, the Federal Circuit, or the Supreme Court.
您可以仅从法律判决的名称中就了解到许多信息。名为Ex parte Applicant的专利案件是由PTAB或早期的USPTO委员会决定的。如果专利案件被称为In re申请人，则是由联邦巡回法院审理的对PTAB的决定提出的上诉。有些案件以两方的名字命名。如果其中一人是现任或前任USPTO局长（申请人诉USPTO局长或USPTO局长诉申请人），则该案件要么是联邦巡回法院审理的在地区法院对USPTO提起的诉讼案件的上诉，要么是最高法院审理的针对联邦巡回法院对In re申请人案件的上诉。最后，一个以两方名称命名的案件，两方名称中的任何一方都不是USPTO局长，这就是两个私人当事人之间的诉讼。例如，它可能是在地区法院提起的侵权诉讼，也可能是PTAB审判程序。甲方诉乙方案件可由PTAB，联邦巡回法院或最高法院判决。
This slide provides some examples of casenames. Ex parteQuist was a case decided by Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences, whichwas the predecessor of the PTAB. In re Kubin was a FederalCircuit decision on appeal from an ex parte decision of the Board. In Bilski v. Kappos, the Supreme Court rendered a decision reviewing theFederal Circuit’s decision in In re Bilski. David Kappos was the Director of the USPTO at the time. The well-known KSR v. Teleflexdecision is a Supreme Court case on review of a Federal Circuit decision;Teleflex had sued KSR for infringement in district court.
此幻灯片提供了案例名称的一些示例。Ex parteQuist是专利上诉和干预委员会决定的案件，其是PTAB的前身。In re Kubin是联邦巡回法院就委员会的Ex parte决定提出上诉的案件。Bilski v.Kappos案中，最高法院作出了一项判决，审查了联邦巡回法院在In re Bilski案中的判决。David Kappos当时是USPTO的局长。众所周知的KSR v. Teleflex案的判决是最高法院审理联邦巡回法院判决的案件;Teleflex在地方法院起诉KSR侵权。
Some issues decided by the Federal Circuit arequestions of law, while others are questions of fact. For example, subject mattereligibility, double patenting, indefiniteness, and claim construction arequestions of law. Utility, anticipation, and written description are questions of fact.
联邦巡回法院决定的一些问题是法律问题，而其他问题则是事实问题。例如，可以授权的客体，重复授权，不清楚和权利要求解释是法律问题。实用性，预期和书面描述是事实的问题。
Sometimes the Federal Circuit must decide questionsthat involve both legal and factual aspects. These are sometimes called mixed questions of law and fact, and includeobviousness, enablement, and entitlement to benefit of an earlier-filedapplication.
有时联邦巡回法院必须决定涉及法律和事实方面的问题。这些有时被称为法律和事实的混合问题，包括显而易见，充分公开和享受早期提交的申请的权利。
When making decisions, the Federal Circuit mustfollow particular standards that depend on whether the question is one of lawor one of fact. The Federal Circuit does not give any deference to PTAB or district courtdecisions that involve questions of law. Instead, the Federal Circuit decides such issues for itself. This is called rendering a decision de novo. On the other hand, the FederalCircuit is required to give deference to questions of fact that were decided bythe PTAB or the district court. If thefactual question was decided by the district court, the Federal Circuit accordssome deference, according to the clearly erroneous standard. Unless the Federal Circuit believes that thedistrict court’s factual decision was clearly erroneous, the Federal Circuitmust defer to the district court’s decision. If the factual question was decided by the PTAB, the Federal Circuit isrequired to give even more deference, and the decision is reviewed under thesubstantial evidence standard. “Substantial evidence” means that a reasonable person can accept theevidence as adequate to support the factual finding. The Federal Circuit must defer to the PTAB’sfactual decision as long as it is supported by substantial evidence.
在做出决定时，联邦巡回法院必须遵循特定的标准，这些标准取决于问题是法律问题还是事实问题。联邦巡回法院不对任何涉及法律问题的PTAB或地区法院判决给予任何遵从。相反，联邦巡回法院自行决定此类问题。这称为“重新审理”(de novo)做出决定。另一方面，联邦巡回法院必须遵从由PTAB或地区法院决定的事实问题。如果事实问题是由地区法院决定的，那么根据明显错误的标准，联邦巡回法院会给予一些遵从。除非联邦巡回法院认为地区法院的事实判决显然是错误的，否则联邦巡回法院必须遵守地区法院的裁决。如果事实问题由PTAB决定，则联邦巡回法院必须给予更多遵从，并根据实质证据标准对该决定进行审查。“实质证据”是指合理的人可以接受足以支持事实调查结果的证据。只要有实质证据支持，联邦巡回法院就必须遵守PTAB的事实决定。
It can be important for examiners to understand howthe Federal Circuit reviews questions of law and questions of fact. For example, deciding what theprior art teaches is a factual determination that is important when consideringanticipation and obviousness. Because PTAB judges must support their factual findings with substantialevidence in order to receive deference from the Federal Circuit, examiners whoprovide a clear explanation of the bases for their rejections in the prior artare more likely to have their rejections affirmed by the PTAB.
审查员了解联邦巡回法院如何审查法律问题和事实问题非常重要。例如，决定现有技术教导的是在考虑预期和显而易见时重要的事实确定。由于PTAB法官必须用实质性证据支持他们的事实调查结果以便接受联邦巡回法院的遵从，因此在决定中明确解释其现有技术的驳回依据的审查员更有可能得到PTAB对其驳回的确认。
Patent examiners should rely on the guidance foundin the MPEP and any supplemental examiner guidance documents. The USPTO’s examination guidance is drafted carefullyand reviewed thoroughly to ensure that it is consistent with the laws,regulations, and judicial decisions that are relevant to patentexamination. One function of the MPEP is to explain important case law that patentexaminers may encounter. Look to theMPEP, and any additional guidance, for USPTO policy concerning how particularcases should be applied during examination. Some cases apply across a variety of technologies, while other may belimited to particular factual situations.
专利审查员应依赖MPEP和任何补充性审查员指导文件中的指导。USPTO的审查指南经过认真起草并经过全面审查，以确保其符合与专利审查相关的法律，法规和司法判决。 MPEP的一个功能是解释专利审查员可能遇到的重要案例法。请参阅MPEP以及任何其他指导，以了解USPTO关于在审查中应如何应用特定判例的政策。有些判例适用于各种技术，而其他判例可能仅限于特定的事实情况。
Examiners can determine whether a particular pieceof case law is discussed in the MPEP by consulting Appendix II. Appendix II of the MPEP is called “List ofDecisions Cited,” and is an alphabetical listing of all cases mentioned in theMPEP. The electronic version of the MPEPincludes hyperlinks so that you can easily access the MPEP sections that arerelevant to a particular case directly from Appendix II. Executing a keyword search(e.g. Alice near/5 CLS) in the eMPEP will return hits in both the “List ofDecisions Cited” and the section where the case is discussed.
审查员可以通过查询附录II来确定MPEP是否讨论了特定的判例法。MPEP的附录II被称为“被引用的判决列表”，并且是MPEP中提到的所有判例的按字母顺序排列的列表。MPEP的电子版包含超链接，以便您可以直接从附录II轻松访问与特定判例相关的MPEP部分。在eMPEP中执行关键字搜索（例如Alicenear / 5 CLS）将返回“被引用的判决列表”和讨论判例的相关部分。
On occasion, attorneys will respond to a rejectionby arguing that the MPEP is not the law, or that there is an error in theMPEP. It isabsolutely correct that the MPEP does not carry the same authority as statutesor regulations. Nevertheless, examinersare expected to follow the guidance provided in the MPEP and other USPTOguidance documents. If you have a question about the MPEP or other guidance in view of case lawcited by an attorney, consult your SPE or practice specialist.
有时，律师会通过辩称MPEP不是法律，或者MPEP中存在错误来回应驳回。MPEP不具备与法律或法规相同的效力，这是绝对正确的。尽管如此，审查员仍应遵循MPEP和其他USPTO指导文件中提供的指导。如果您根据律师引用的判例法对MPEP或其他指导有疑问，请咨询您的SPE或执业专家。
截屏太累了，所以今天分享上半部分，敬请期待下半部分。翻译的比较匆忙，欢迎大家勘误。
如果这份资料对您有帮助，请您分享，让更多的人了解，谢谢。
如果您对知识产权实务感兴趣，也可添加我的个人微信 Dalingipr，并注明：入群，我把您拉入我创建的知识产权实务微信群。