2009年7月29日 星期三

About Claims XX - 方法專利

美國最高法院曾經定義「方法」是在特定物質上經某種模式的處理而產生特定結果,它是運作於物質上的動作、一連串的行為而產生轉變至不同的狀態或是事情
The Supreme Court of U.S. has defined a process as "a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon subject matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing."

方法專利的權利範圍特色有:
  1. 方法專利涵蓋轉換、改變或是運作於特定物體上的操作程序,方法專利並不會限制於特定結構,並可應用於新的產品或是硬體,基本上有較廣的範圍
  2. 方法專利所包括的流程能夠轉換、改變或是運作於一個部件(workpiece)上
  3. 方法專利有一系列步驟(A series of steps)
  4. 方法專利可以沒有裝置的特徵、沒有物品製造的特徵,或是沒有任何元件的特性
  5. 描述方法專利的步驟通常由「ing」形式的動詞開始,但不總是這樣
  6. 方法專利的步驟是運作於一個裝置上,而此裝置可能運作於特定部件上
  7. 方法專利也可直接運作於部件上
  8. 方法專利各步驟中,應從說明書中找出適當的動詞
  9. 方法專利很少不是陳述運作於特定東西的動作
  10. 如果可能,可以指出執行各步驟的功能或是目的
  11. 對於有關產品權利範圍,如果必要的陳述已經以各步驟表達出來,無須再描述其功效
  12. 方法專利中,如果不想要指出所使用的結構或是部件,可使用「means for」(或step for)
這個例子是人用手握住高爾夫球竿的揮擊動作的專利!


可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/07/about-claims-iii.html
參考資料:Landis on Mechanics Patent Claim Drafting
Ron

取得美國申請日的基本要求

取得美國專利申請日的基本要求:(37 CFR 1.53)
  1. 符合美國專利法第112條規定的說明書
  2. 至少一個權利範圍
  3. 圖示
  4. 申請日後不得新增新事物(new matter)
  5. 日後於規定時間內(一般為兩個月內,可延長)應補充其他必要文件(如宣誓書)與費用
[原文]
(b) Application filing requirements -- Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, except for a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section or a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 containing a description pursuant to § 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to § 1.75, and any drawing required by § 1.81(a) are filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) and § 1.78(a).
(1) A continuation or divisional application that names as inventors the same or fewer than all of the inventors named in the prior application may be filed under this paragraph or paragraph (d) of this section.
(2) A continuation-in-part application (which may disclose and claim subject matter not disclosed in the prior application) or a continuation or divisional application naming an inventor not named in the prior application must be filed under this paragraph.

取得美國商標申請日的基本要求:(37 CFR 2.21)
  1. 申請人名稱
  2. 聯絡名稱與地址
  3. 清楚的圖示與標示
  4. 列舉物品與服務
  5. 費用
若無符合上述要求,將無法取得申請日,並退件!

[原文]
§2.21 Requirements for receiving a filing date.

(a)The Office will grant a filing date to an application under section 1 or section 44 of the Act that contains all of the following:

(1)The name of the applicant;
(2)A name and address for correspondence;
(3)A clear drawing of the mark;
(4)A listing of the goods or services; and
(5)The filing fee for at least one class of goods or services, required by § 2.6.

(b) If the applicant does not submit all the elements required in paragraph (a) of this section, the Office may return the papers with an explanation of why the filing date was denied.

(c) The applicant may correct and resubmit the application papers. If the resubmitted papers and fee meet all the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, the Office will grant a filing date as of the date the Office receives the corrected papers.

Ron

2009年7月28日 星期二

用Email寄送官函


美國專利局提出e-Office Action的方案(http://www.uspto.gov/eoa/
讓申請人可以透過private PAIR申請以電子郵件接收Office Action,取代傳統郵寄的方式,申請人亦能透過private PAIR下載所有的來往文件。申請人必須先取得用戶代碼、透過公證人...,用以申請private PAIR,可參考:http://www.patent-tutorial.net/test-site/node/1127

使用e-Office Action,申請人可以即時快速地收到USPTO的通知,包括各種跟期限有關的提醒信,大概更重要的是,減少紙張使用!

Ron

韓國最終核駁後修正限制放寬

之前,當韓國專利局發出最終核駁之後的補正程序,申請人能夠提出的修正限制十分嚴格!修正可能會產生實質的改變,除非提出訴願,並伴隨著修正

(2009年7月1日起)新修法之後,最終核駁之後的補正則放寬許多,可以自由限縮範圍,限制則有:
  1. 為了明確、新增與刪除範圍的限縮修正
  2. 校正錯誤
  3. 明確模糊的描述
  4. 刪除認為是新增的事物(new matter)
資料參考:Kim, Hong & Assoicates
Ron

韓國專利「分割」申請案改變

以往,修法前,申請人僅能於特定期限內提出「分割申請案(divisional application)」,如收到先前核駁(preliminary rejection)後,或是提出訴願後30日內,所以不太可能在核駁後、訴願前提出分割案。
下圖顯示可提出分割案的時間有,對先前核駁回應前可提出分割案;提出訴願後,並到先前再審查之間可提出分割案;訴願後維持原判(再審核駁)之後,亦可提出分割案:


修法之後,也就是2009年7月1日之後,在收到核駁決定,並請求再審查前,可提出分割案;另外,收到「再審查」(新法)最終核駁後,提出訴願前,可提出分割案!

在新修法中,有個特色,也就是收到核駁決定,或是最終核駁後,如果有任何可核准的範圍,可針對可核准範圍提出分割案,以利獲准專利,其餘被核駁範圍則可繼續答辯或修正。

資料參考:Kim, Hong & Assoicates
Ron
(以上有些名詞,應注意意義,可能定義有所不同)

韓國專利審查新增「再審」程序

可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/200971.html
韓國於2009年7月1日起實施「再審(Re-Examination)」制度,也就是有別於以往在核駁決定(decision of rejection)後,申請人僅能選擇訴願(Appeal)產生較高費用的問題,韓國專利局引入「再審」制度,讓申請人可以提出再審查,可伴隨答辯、修改說明書/權利範圍與圖式。申請人在收到核駁決定後,可選擇訴願,或是此再審制度。

由下圖舊制可知,核駁決定後(核駁決定前會至少有一次先前審查(preliminary rejection)),30日內可提出訴願,提出訴願後30日內可提出修正,並進行先前再審(prior re-examination),之後再進入再審,由資深審查官執行


下圖為新制,收到核駁決定後,可於30日內提出再審查(或是直接提出訴願),之後若維持原判,則再進入訴願


新制中,再審的基本費(規費,不含權利項數)用約100000韓元,而訴願基本費用約需150000韓元,新制中應可省點錢!

資料參考:Kim, Hong & Assoicates
Ron

2009年7月23日 星期四

美國專利法第121條(分割案)

§121. Divisional applications

If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 of this title [35 USC 120] it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. If a divisional application is directed solely to subject matter described and claimed in the original application as filed, the Director may dispense with signing and execution by the inventor. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.

美國專利法第121條規範了分割申請案
因為在一個專利申請案中只能保護一個發明,若同時載有兩個或以上獨立或可區隔的發明,則會被要求分割處理,比如發出Restriction/Elections,要求申請人限制(restriction)保護範圍於其中之一發明。
而其他發明則可以分割案申請案處理,並應符合美國專利法第120條中「先前申請案與後續案」的規定,包括說明書揭露應符合112規定若先前申請案未被專利、拋棄或是程序終結,則有前案申請日的好處等。
經過分割案處理的申請案並不能互相引用為核駁引證案。
另外,經要求分割時,不能質疑審查委員可能錯誤判斷限制(restriction)的要求。

Sec. 120. - Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by the first paragraph of section 112 of this title in an application previously filed in the United States, or as provided by section 363 of this title, which is filed by an inventor or inventors named in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. The Director may establish procedures, including the payment of a surcharge, to accept an unintentionally delayed submission of an amendment under this section

Ron

2009年7月21日 星期二

字面上的支持還不夠!

說明書字面上的支持還不夠!還可能因為內容不足,而不用前案就提出核駁!

撰寫專利說明書時,有人是先規劃出權利範圍,就像是寫大綱一般,完成後,可以順利地「貼回」實施內容中,一般還會加以修飾、補充實施例、描寫圖式內容,這樣,可以解決一般要求說明書應該要支持權利範圍的內容。就如美國專利審查基準2163.03所規範的基本說明書要求:
A description requirement issue can arise in a number of different circumstances where it must be determined whether the subject matter of a claim is supported in an application as filed. See MPEP § 2163 for examination guidelines pertaining to the written description requirement. While a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim which is not described sufficiently. Consequently, rejection of an original claim for lack of written description should be rare. Most typically, the issue will arise in the following circumstances: (適用於修改、後續案、優先權案、專利糾紛)

但是足夠的揭露並不只有「貼回去」而已,揭露內容應有技術內容與細節,並使得相關技術人員可以瞭解,並據以實施!
The specification, while providing literal support for the claimed limitations, does not describe the invention in a way that would enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention.

若說明書有上述揭露的問題,審查委員可以認為內容不明確而沒有進行檢索與告知前案,但仍提出核駁
參考MPEP 2173.06 Prior Art Rejection of Claim Rejected as Indefinite
All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of a claim against the prior art. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). The fact that terms may be indefinite does not make the claim obvious over the prior art. When the terms of a claim are considered to be indefinite, at least two approaches to the examination of an indefinite claim relative to the prior art are possible.

First, where the degree of uncertainty is not great, and where the claim is subject to more than one interpretation and at least one interpretation would render the claim unpatentable over the prior art, an appropriate course of action would be for the examiner to enter two rejections: (A) a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph; and (B) a rejection over the prior art based on the interpretation of the claims which renders the prior art applicable. See, e.g., Ex parte Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important for the examiner to point out how the claim is being interpreted. Second, where there is a great deal of confusion and uncertainty as to the proper interpretation of the limitations of a claim, it would not be proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art. As stated in In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962), a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should not be based on considerable speculation about the meaning of terms employed in a claim or assumptions that must be made as to the scope of the claims.

本段提出,權利範圍所描述的所有內容都是用來考慮專利性的根據,當有技術元件被認為不清楚時,至少有兩個審查方案:
第一,當不清楚的程度並不是太大時,權利範圍可能有一個或兩個解釋,審查委員可針對這些解釋提出前案核駁,包括(a)不符112條第二段等不明確的核駁,與(b)根據解釋而提出的前案的技術核駁。
若是根據審查委員自己解釋的內容而提出的核駁,則應說明解釋為何?
第二,若是不明確的部份很多,導致混淆,使得無法提出適當的前案,則不適合提出具有引證案的核駁
如以下訊息,就是這個問題:

Ron

2009年7月16日 星期四

Michael Jackson 的簽名


想要Michael Jackson的簽名,很難拿到,卻是可以看到
從他透過Triumph公司所申請的舞鞋專利即可看到本人的簽名
可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/07/michael-jackson.html

這案的歷史還透露出,最初申請時,沒有簽名,等到USPTO進行形式審查(關係到申請日有沒有效)發出通知漏掉簽名,Michael才簽上名的!


最近USPTO也舉辦Michael Jackson的專利、商標與其應用的展覽,給民眾機會教育,重視智慧財產權!

下次找找周杰倫的專利或是商標!
Ron

2009年7月15日 星期三

韓國無效制度

韓國無效制度
資料參考:NEIT、KIPO

有關韓國專利的法律程序:
當申請人收到韓國專利局的申請案最終核駁通知,或是有人欲「無效」韓國專利(同樣包括新型、商標、設計專利),包括對修正提出異議、撤銷商標等,可提出複審程序!

專利局此時將指派三位IPT(Intellectual Property Tribunal)的評審委員進行審理

審理內容包括形式審查(formality),如果是無效案,將此訴訟請求轉給專利權人,若是專利侵害案,則轉給侵權被告,由對方提出回應,若有回應,則再轉給原告

Inter parte Case
此時,評審委員針對兩造提出的意見進行審理,並做出決定。若兩造有不服決定的,可於30日內在專利法庭(patent court)提出上訴(Appeal),同理,若再不服專利法庭的決定,則可在最高法院(supreme court)提出上訴(14天內)

下圖由KIPO所截下的流程圖(Inter Parte Cases)
可知,形式符合要求還頗重要,有修正機會,且在此複審制度下,兩造皆有機會表達意見



Ex Parte Case
以下圖來看,在此單方面的複審程序中,審理的決定並不會交由被告回覆意見,而由IPT指派法官後,即進行審理,並做出決定。期間,專利權人可提出修正,修正範圍包括(1)限縮範圍;(2)校正錯誤;(3)釐清不明確的內容


Ron

韓國專利消息

韓國專利消息
消息來源:HANYANG、NEIT

Implementation of Expedited Examination System to Support Low Carbon Green Growth
自10.1.2009開始
(最近修改的專利審理條例)只要與綠色科技(green technology)直接相關的專利申請案,將在符合特定要求下優先審理

所謂的綠色科技,定義是,透過整個社會與經濟活動的流程,產生節省能源、有效利用能源,如降低溫室氣體與污染排放的技術,乾淨產物、乾淨能源、資源循環、無害生態的科技
[technology that, through the entire process of social and economic activities, saves energy resources and uses them efficiently to minimize green house gas and pollutant emissions; such as greenhouse gas reduction ability, utilization technique of energy usage, clean production technology, clean energy technique, resource circulation and environment friendly technology(including related fusion skills) etc.]

所以,經判斷為綠色科技的專利申請案,韓國專利局決定,相關的快速審查與快速判決(expedited examination and speedy judgment )將可分別於一個月與四個月內收到第一次結果,這些皆比一般快速審查的時間快得多!


o韓國專利法目前的法規是需符合以下條件,才會執行快速審查(Expedited Examination)的程序:
根據韓國專利法第61條,韓國專利局將要求審查委員可優先審理下列各申請案:
(1)經公開後,特定人比其他申請人在商業或是產業上已更早實施的發明申請案;
(2)需要緊急處理的申請案,如:
  • 國防科技
  • 避免環境污染的設備
  • 直接出口促銷的技術
  • 中央或地方政府的員工的發明案
  • 外國創新產業(venture business)
  • 新科技發展與政府支持的計畫
  • 有主張韓國優先權的國外案的相對申請案
  • 韓國國內已商業化或是預備商業化的發明
  • 電子商務發明案
若符合上述規定的相關申請人,可提出說明與請求,以加速審理


Enforcement of Automatic Fee Payment System
自動規費繳納系統啟動!
自2009.7.1起,各種韓國專利的規費將可自動繳納

Ron
(以上內容以官方公佈為準)

2009年7月14日 星期二

小蝦米vs.大鯨魚


小蝦米vs.大鯨魚
消息來源:SSLC、McCurry網站

McDonald vs. McCurry
McDonald是個全世界知名的速食餐廳,理論上這個知名品牌的商標應該在世界各地都可通行,但是前一陣子,在馬來西亞,高等法院的判決讓之前已經獲得勝訴的McDonald反而不能在當地使用Mc兩個英文縮寫與麥當勞印象深刻的黃色、紅色

McDonald於2001年那年先提出訴訟,認為McCurry違反以「Mc」作為招牌,宣稱是麥當勞的註冊商標,McCurry不服,認為「Mc」並非McDonald專有,並宣稱「Mc」在一些國家是用於姓氏,同樣McCurry為馬來西亞與印度的食物Malaysia Chicken Curry的縮寫,與西方的速食完全不同,當時,高等法院判決,麥當勞勝訴,命令McCurry不能使用字首「Mc」!

這間巷弄轉角裡的印度餐廳McCurry上訴,這時,McDonald是被告,上訴法院無異議地判決,並無任何證據顯示McCurry有提供如McDonald的餐飲與商業相關活動,故判定McCurry勝訴


主要原因是:
1) McDonald是跨國大企業,提供西方速食,但是McCurry是個本地小餐廳,提供當地食物,並無任何商標漂竊的行為
2) McDonald的標誌是弧形黃色紅底的「M」,但是McCurry是白灰色「Restoran McCurry」紅底的招牌,不會有混淆的情形
3) McDonald提供的菜單多半有「Mc」開頭的餐點,而McCurry並沒有
4) 另外是,McCurry的主要顧客是成年與中老年人,而McDonald主要是孩童

法官參考以上見解,認為麥當勞並不能獨占「Mc」的使用,並認為McCurry的招牌並不會讓人聯想到McDonald


這樣的判決算是幫了McCurry一個大忙,本來不會相互聯想的招牌,這下就聯在一起了

Ron

2009年7月13日 星期一

船井控瑞軒侵權 裁定無效

消息更新(7/13/2009):
http://tw.nextmedia.com/applenews/article/art_id/31773746/IssueID/20090710

by vizio.com

2009年七月六日,美國海關做出決定,認為Vizio並無侵害Funai專利權(US6,115,074),並允許Vizio繼續進口高解析度液晶電視
主要的轉折是因為今年三月期間,USPTO做出此專利案('074)最終核駁的決定,同時,Vizio更提出反托辣斯與Funai不公平競爭的訴訟官司,並說明Vizio已獲得多種專利授權

可參考:http://www.vizio.com/about.aspx?cid=3623&id=1318
Ron

2009年7月9日 星期四

美國專利法第132條

修正產生的new matter將會於下次Office Action提出核駁
通常使用美國專利法第132條,原文如下,雖原文是針對reexamination程序的核駁,但也是其中描述任何修正產生的new matter都會遭致核駁。本段主要是說明,審查中產生的核駁(rejection)、異議(objection)理由,或是任何要求(requirement),加上參考文件,皆應通知相關申請人,並述明理由,認申請人可以做出適當的再審意見。
§132. Notice of rejection; reexamination
(a) Whenever, on examination, any claim for a patent is rejected, or any objection or requirement made, the Director shall notify the applicant thereof, stating the reasons for such rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of his application; and if after receiving such notice, the applicant persists in his claim for a patent, with or without amendment, the application shall be reexamined. No amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention.
(b) The Director shall prescribe regulations to provide for the continued examination of applications for patent at the request of the applicant. The Director may establish appropriate fees for such continued examination and shall provide a 50 percent reduction in such fees for small entities that qualify for reduced fees under section 41(h)(1) of this title [35 USC 41(h)(1)].

以下範例中,由於new matter又未被說明書支持,產生無法讓相關技術人員可以瞭解,又產生不符112的核駁理由:

Ron

2009年7月6日 星期一

Michael Jackson的舞鞋專利

從得知Michael Jackson是美國專利第5255452號(Method and means for creating anti gravity illusion)的發明人之後,發現,我還真是慢知慢覺,原來很多文章已經在討論此專利了,尤其是從傾斜45度的舞步開始...

這件專利的名稱是說創造反地心引力的幻覺的方法,主要範圍所揭露的就比較「接近現實」,是一種將鞋子與鉤子連結,使人可以站在舞台上,並超越人的重心而傾斜:
1. A system for engaging shoes with a hitch means to permit a person standing on a stage surface to lean forwardly beyond his or her center of gravity, comprising:

at least one shoe having a heel with a first engagement means, said first engagement means comprising a recess formed in a heel of said shoe covered with a heel slot plane located at a bottom region of said heel, said heel slot plate having a slot formed therein with a relatively wide opening at a leading edge of said heel and a narrower terminal end rearward of said leading edge, said recess being larger in size above said terminal end of said slot than is said terminal end of said slot; and

a second engagement means, detachably engageable with said first engagement means, comprising a hitch member having an enlarged head portion connected by a narrower shank portion to a means for raising and lowering said head of said hitch member above and substantially level with or below said stage surface, said head portion being larger in size than said terminal end of said slot and said shank portion being narrower than said terminal end of said slot, wherein said hitch member can be moved through apertures in said stage surface between a projecting position raised above said stage surface and a retracted position at or below the stage surface, and when said head portion of said hitch member is raised above said stage surface, said first engagement means can be detachably engaged with said projecting hitch member, thereby allowing a person wearing the shoes to lean forwardly with his or her normal center of gravity beyond a front region of said shoes, and maintain said forward lean.


上圖專利公報首頁的代表圖顯示舞鞋的底部,其中有個V型的溝槽,這個就是用來鉤住舞台上的機關,也就是下圖顯示的34,固定舞鞋,再利用身體的協調性與肌力,將身體可以固定成一個斜角


像這樣:


Ron


歐洲專利明年小改

歐洲專利明年修法(coming into force on 1st April 2010)
資料來源:Dr. M. Engelhard and M. Muschke

歐洲專利局行政事務會議決定,2010年4月1日起開始實施以下主要措施:
  1. 現行的EPO規定是,在正式實質審查前,會提出一份檢索報告(search report),然而,申請人可不予回應,而待實質審查結果出爐後再回應;

    現階段,雖然申請人可不回應檢索報告,但一般代理人都建議回應,不一定可避免審查核駁,並縮短審查時間(提出實審後),若不回應,正式審查意見往往會複製檢索報告中的前案檢索結果
    此次修法規定,EPO將會於提出檢索報告同時提出意見,申請人有義務要回應此檢索報告
  2. 針對「主動」提出分割案(divisional application)的期限,規定申請人應於EPO做出第一次「溝通(communication,如第一次審查報告或是檢索報告)」後24個月內提出。若申請人有提出一系列相關的申請案(一件母案與多件分割案),則此期限適用於此系列所有的申請案,不會因為有後申請案而「延長」期限

其他細節規定:

  1. 有關上述「回應檢索報告」的規定中,若為「直接」申請EPO的申請案,檢索報告的回應應於檢索報告「公開」後6個月內提出
  2. 若檢索報告於4/1/2010當日或之後發出,申請人即有義務回應
  3. 針對PCT申請案,若EPO並非該案的國際檢索局(International Search Authority, ISA),EPO將會於該案進入EPO階段並給申請人修改機會後,提出補充檢索報告(supplementary search report)。於提出補充檢索報告後,EPO會於一個月內提出要求申請人進行進一步的程序,包括於一定期限內回應此檢索報告
  4. 上述所謂「進一步的程序(further processing)」可能為一些補正措施
  5. 同樣,若上述「補充檢索報告」於4/1/2009當日或之後發出,申請人有義務回應
  6. 若EPO為PCT申請案的國際檢索局,EPO將會發給申請人限期(一個月)回應檢索意見
  7. 要求一個月內回應檢索意見,適用於EPO同時為PCT的國際檢索局(ISA)與國際初步審查局(International Preliminary Examination Authority, IPEA);若EPO僅為ISA而並非IPEA,則不會要求一個月內回應

針對4/1/2010當日或之後所提出檢索報告,其中要求的檢索範圍:

  1. EPO日後的檢索報告,僅會根據一組獨立請求項分類,並提出相對的檢索結果
  2. 相對地,EPO亦僅會要求申請人針對該組獨立項的檢索報告提出回應
  3. 若該申請案有不只一組獨立項,EPO會要求限制在一概括性的範圍中(general one claim category)
  4. 若有不符EPC規定的申請案,EPO將會限期(2個月)說明,包括「商業方法」或是其他不明確的範圍,否則不予檢索或審查

針對分割案:

  1. 申請人應於EPO做出第一次溝通(檢索報告)後24個月內提出主動分割案
  2. 針對不符「單一性」的申請案,申請人應於EPO提出核駁後24個月內提出分割案(被動分割)
  3. 針對過渡時期的分割案,若在4/1/2010已超過期限,仍可在4/1/2010後6個月內提出申請
  4. 或該案在4/1/2010時仍為pending,則應在不超過6個月內提出

Ron

2009年7月3日 星期五

一些消息

日本專利消息,主要來源:HARAKENZO、ITC

●日本船井(Funai)在美國ITC控告11家電視製造商,包括美國Vizio,宣稱這些廠商侵害船井的液晶電視專利,並且判決有效,除非和解,否則這些廠商的產品將無法輸入美國。
其中專利權是來自法國公司Thomson的數位廣播的基礎專利,告訴中主張Vizio等廠商侵害以下兩件專利:

US 6,115,074揭露「System for Forming and Processing Program Map Information Suitable for Terrestrial, Cable or Satellite Broadcast」(用於電纜、衛星廣播上形成與處理程式表資訊的系統與方法)
主要範圍是及於MPEG相容封包的解碼裝置,其中包括有提供給解碼程式的資訊,主要有兩個元件,辨識頻道表資訊的手段與收集辨識的資訊以形成頻道表的手段,看來十分大的範圍,任何一個傳遞中的封包應該都會透過header記載編解碼的訊息,而數位訊號傳遞更是包括有頻道的資訊,範圍如下:
1. Apparatus for decoding a datastream of MPEG compatible packetized program information containing program map information to provide decoded program data, comprising:
means for identifying channel map information conveyed within said packetized program information; and
means for assembling said identified information to form a channel map for identifying said individual packetized datastreams constituting said program,
wherein said channel map information replicates information conveyed in said MPEG compatible program map information and said replicated information associates a broadcast channel with packet identifiers used to identify individual packetized datastreams that constitute a program transmitted on said broadcast channel.

US 5,329,369揭露「Assymmetric Picture Compression」(非對稱影像壓縮技術)
主要範圍及於電視裝置,其中包括有影像顯示、接收第一影像訊號、接收第二影像訊號、改變第二訊號所呈現的長寬比例,與結合第一訊號的部份與改變後的第二訊號的部份,結合後顯示等手段,範圍如下:
1. A television apparatus, comprising:
video display means having a first format display ratio of width to height;
means for receiving a first video signal representing a first picture;
means for receiving a second video signal representing a second picture having a second ratio of width to height different than said first ratio;
means for changing said ratio of width to height of said second picture; and,
means for combining a portion of said first picture with a portion of said changed second picture for simultaneous display of said first and second picture portions.

判決可參考:
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_reg_notices/337/337-TA-617..1239381876.pdf

然而,USPTO跟著認為上述專利應為無效專利,並且可能說服CAFC駁回ITC的決定。
接著,就是Vizio反過來告Funai侵害其專利權!

●日本專利局持續擴大與其合作專利審查高速公路的國家,目前新增第六個國家是芬蘭(其他有美國、韓國、英國、德國與丹麥),審查高速公路(PPH)是能夠過讓已經在日本登記的申請案能夠被各國引用,而加速審查時間。

●日前傳出美國公司Spansion(全球最大的NOR記憶體晶片供應商)破產的消息,而四月份與Samsung和解拿到7千萬美金,算是可以應急!

●隨著中國的經濟起飛,已連續七年蟬聯全球最多的商標申請案

Ron

消息更新(7/13/2009):
http://tw.nextmedia.com/applenews/article/art_id/31773746/IssueID/20090710