However, the problem goes beyond the inappropriateness of the term “drawing” for scientific data. The EPC (but not PCT) addresses this problem somewhat by stipulating that “flow sheets and diagrams shall be deemed to be drawings” ( Rule 46 (3) EPC). In fact, the very phrase “drawings” seems inappropriate for the types of graphical illustration provided in support of other types of invention, particularly those in the software, biotechnology and pharmaceutical fields.
The special requirements relating to drawings are provided by Rule 11.3 (a)-(n)PCT and Rule 46 EPC.įrom a quick perusal of the special requirements relating to drawings, it rapidly becomes apparent that these provisions are drafted with mechanical inventions in mind. At a functional level, the drawings, like all other parts of the application, must be “presented as to admit of direct reproduction by photography, electrostatic processes, photo offset, and microfilming, in any number of copies” (Rule 11(a) PCT). The formal requirements for the form in which patent drawings of patent applications are to be presented are provided by Rule 11 PCT and Rule 46 EPC. However, this difference is not reflected in the formal drawing requirements of the EPC or PCT. We ask therefore, whether the formal drawings requirements deserve a re-think. However, these data do not serve the same purpose as mechanical drawings and do not naturally conform to the formal drawing requirements for technical illustrations of mechanical objects. Scientific data necessary to support biotech and pharmaceutical inventions are also provided as “drawings”. The European Patent Office (EPO) considers good quality drawings as very important for the correct disclosure of an invention ( Guide for applicants, Drawings). The function of patent drawings is to aid understanding of an invention, but are they fit for purpose? Embodiments of a mechanical invention may be easier to explain and understand as a drawing compared to a lengthy description.
0 kommentar(er)
