2009年11月3日温 * * * * 在中科院建院60周年纪念讲话中提出“让科技引领中国

1999年7月12日甲向中国专利局提出了名为“半喂入稻麦联合收割机”实用新型专利申请(申请号为198921408807)，该申请于2000年6月27日公开，公告号为CN2058549U。2000年11月26日，甲、乙、丙、丁、戊等5人共同向中国专利局提出“背负式半喂入联合收割机”发明专利申请(申请号为199011017906)。两个申请均是关于背负式半喂入联合收割机的构造，技术方案完全相同。专利局经实质审查后认定该申请不具有新颖性，于2002年11月21日作出驳回该申请的决定。甲等5人不服，于2003年1月12日向专利复审委员会提出复审请求。专利复审委员会在2005年8月11日第614号复审决定中确认：甲等5人申请的“背负式半喂入联合收割机”发明专利，已被申请日之前公开的具有相同内容的实用新型专利所披露，以丧失新颖性为由驳回甲等人的复审请求，维持中国专利局作出的驳回决定。甲等人不服专利复审委员会的复审决定，遂向人民法院提起以专利复审委员会为被告的行政诉讼。原告称：专利复审委员会认定其发明专利不具有新颖性所依据的对比文件是其自己申请的实用新型专利，根据《专利法》关于新颖性的规定，没有同样的发明或实用新型由他人向专利局提出过申请，并记载在申请日以后公布的专利申请文件中，故其自己申请的实用新型专利不能否定其发明专利的新颖性，并且其实用新型专利已获得授权，具有新颖性，与之技术内容完全相同的发明专利就同样具有新颖性。原告要求撤销专利复审委员会第614号复审决定，判令重新复审，作出该专利申请有专利性的决定，并赔偿原告因诉讼造成的损失。
问：(1)该案中原告始终认为自己的实用新型不能否定自己的发明专利的新颖性，你认为这一说法能否成立为什么
(2)何谓抵触申请本案是否涉及抵触申请
(3)本案是否涉及优先权为什么
(4)法院对该专利行政纠纷应作出怎样的裁判

Passage One

The increase in leisure time, the higher standard of living, the availability of cars to a wider range of the population and, perhaps, a broadening of personal horizons have all contributed to a drastic change in the summer week-end habits of the British publiC. Now, on most Saturdays in the months loosely called summer, it is possible to see family saloons loaded with picnics and crammed to bursting with several generations of pleasure-bent Smiths’. Like competitors in some grossly disorganized rally, they nose their way through the neat drab streets of council estates, converging on the main roads, then crawl as best they can out into the open country and towards the coast.

Congestion and the frustration of wasting precious time at the receiving end of someone else’s exhaust fumes gets the pursuit of enjoyment off to had start; tempersbecome frayed. Children, traditionally the target for fathers’ ill-humor, are singled out for special treatment. The past week’s misdeeds are unearthed and magnified out of all reasonable proportion; mothers leap to their broods’ defense and, before long, vows that never again will this outing be repeated are being hurled back and forth. Of course, by this time, the children have wisely extracted themselves from the argument and are quietly amusing themselves by looking at their irate elders or gaping at the unfamiliar sight of animals in fields, often so much stranger to them than the corresponding naked shapes they are wont to see in butchers’ windows.

Eventually, tempers partially restored, the sea is in sight. The paraphernalia of enjoyment is set up on teeming beach, sand mysteriously appears in every sandwich, pale industrial legs are exposed in self-conscious nakedness.

The children drift away, quite capable of finding enough magic in this exciting, watery world to occupy them fully until they are gathered in again. Fathers and mothers, and quite possibly some members of a previous generation, settle back to receive the sun and dream away the tensions brought to a climax by the journey. Fathers eye with furtive lustfulness and mothers glare with disapproval and envy as the shapely matrons of tomorrow splash and play and race coquettishly around them, spraying water and sand and disturbing any hopes of peace.

At length the shadows drop and chill in the air brings an end to the idyll. The lobster skin is painfully covered up and the day’s debris half-heartedly collected. The family is rounded up and the brief dreams trodden into the sand along with the wasted paper.

Why are mothers liable to give disapproving looks ？（）

A．They resent their husbands’ admiration of the intruders.

B．They are angry at being disturbed when they want peace and quiet.

C．They haven’t yet recovered from the effects of the journey.

D．They are jealous because these people are in better shape than they ar

白头翁汤的功效是（）。

A.清热化湿，涩肠止痢

B.清热解毒，凉血散瘀

C.清热解毒，凉血止痢

D.清热凉血，消肿止痛

E.清热泻火，凉血止血

甲公司于3月5日向乙企业发出签订合同要约的信函。3月8日乙企业收到甲公司声明该要约作废的传真。3月10日乙企业收到该要约的信函。根据《合同法》规定，甲公司发出传真声明要约作废的行为属于( )。

A．(A) 要约撤回

B．(B) 要约撤销

C．(C) 要约生效

D．(D) 要约失效

女性，38岁，患者曾有甲状腺功能亢进，内科治疗5年后症状消失。近几日因与丈夫吵架，夜不能寐。昨日起心慌、胸闷、不安。体检见心率160次/分，心电图显示窦性心律不齐，心肌缺血。 若该患者还有支气管哮喘，应该改用哪个药物（）

A.美托洛尔

B.卡维地洛

C.拉贝洛尔

D.利多卡因

E.普萘洛尔