Recently, a patent invalidation case by Beijing Sanju Sunshine Intellectual Property *** Beijing Yiju Law Firm and ** patentee Luohe Pingping Food Co., Ltd. was closed. made by the State Intellectual Property OfficeNo. 566700The invalidity review decision upheld the No. 1 owned by Ping Ping Food CompanyThe utility model patent of "an easy-to-open food packaging" is valid.
Paragraph 3 of Article 22 of the Patent Law stipulates that inventive step means that the invention has outstanding substantive features and significant progress compared with the prior art, and the utility model has substantial features and progress.
If the technical solution defined by a claim has a distinguishing technical feature compared with the prior art solution, and the prior art does not give the inspiration to use the distinguishing technical features to solve the relevant technical problems, the claim has an inventive step.
In this case, claim 1 seeks protection of an easy-to-open food packaging.
“1.An easy-to-open food packaging comprises a stretch upper film and a stretch lower film with double-sided stretching, the forming film bubble has an egg-shaped sealing cavity (1), wherein: the outer contour of the package is egg-shaped with a small upper and a large bottom, the outer side of the sealing cavity (1) is a sealing area (2), the sealing area (2) is bonded by an upper film and a lower film, the top of the bag body is provided with an easy-to-open mouth (3), a transition area (4) is arranged between the easy-to-open mouth (3) and the sealing area (2), and the upper and lower films of the easy-to-open mouth (3) and the transition area (4) are not bonded, The peel (3) and the transition zone (4) are separated by adhesive lines (5), and the entire package can be opened by pulling the peel (3) to both sides.Exhibit 1 discloses a food packaging bag. Compared with the two, the differences are as follows: (1) the molded film bubble has an egg-shaped sealing cavity, and the outer contour of the packaging is egg-shaped with a small top and a large bottom, while Evidence 1 does not disclose that the shape of the sealing cavity is egg-shaped. (2) There is a transition zone between the easy peel and the sealing area of the patent, the upper and lower films of the easy peel and the transition area are not bonded, and the adhesive line and the transition area are separated by adhesive lines, and Evidence 1 does not disclose the adhesive lines and transition zones. The technical problem actually solved by the above distinguishing feature in the scheme of claim 1 is to buffer the applied forcePrevent the marinade from spillingEvidence 2 discloses a packaging opening structure, and the Requestor asserts that the easy-opening sealing part of Evidence 2 is equivalent to the adhesive line of the patent, and the non-sealing area is equivalent to the transition area of the patent, and Evidence 2 discloses the above distinguishing features (2), and the essence of preventing marinade splashing is to control the size of the opening, and the easy-opening sealing part and the non-sealing area can also play a role in controlling the opening size, and thus has technical implications.
After the trial, the State Intellectual Property Office held that the distinguishing feature (2) limited the transition area between the easy to open mouth and the sealing area, and the easy opening mouth and the transition area were separated by the adhesive line, and the above limitation reflected the position relationship between the easy opening of the patent, the adhesive line and the transition area, so when the packaging bag was uncovered through the easy opening of the patent, the adhesive line was first uncovered, and then the sealing area was uncovered, so as to buffer the rapid force, and because the easy opening and the transition area still existedHelps keep the marinade out of the spill。However, combined with Evidence 2, it can be seen that the opening is located at the top corner of the packaging bag, and when the user tears the opening, multiple easy-to-open parts will be torn open at the same time, so the sealing cavity will be opened immediately, which cannot play a role in preventing splashing, and the content disclosed in Evidence 2 does not reflect the position relationship between the above-mentioned easy-to-open opening, adhesive line, and transition zone as defined by the distinguishing feature (2).It cannot play a role in blocking the liquid splashing in the sealing chamber
Therefore, regardless of whether the claimant's claim to distinguish the technical feature (1) is established or not, it does not affect the conclusion that the technical solution of claim 1 of this patent is not obvious, so the claimant's claim that claim that claim 1 does not have an inventive step is not established. Therefore, the 202020018567 is maintainedThe utility model patent No. 2 is valid.