2010年8月11日 星期三

USPTO對於Bilski最新判決的過渡作法

USPTO針對最近最高法院對Bilski v. Kappos案對於美國專利法101條的影響判斷的決定做出過渡時期的辦法,指出判斷方法專利的適格( eligibility)與抽象概念可專利性的要素,認為在CAFC中做出利用「machine-or-transformation test」的判斷準則仍是一個判斷是否符合101規定的有用的工具,但卻不是唯一可以判斷可專利性的方式,延伸參考:http://enpan.blogspot.com/2010/07/bilski.html

根據USPTO文件內容,在尋求公眾意見的同時,認為過渡時期對於方法專利是否符合101規定的判斷要素主要仍是以整體權利範圍而言(as a whole)來評估該方法專利範圍是否僅為抽象概念,所以針對提出的各種要素,並非需要一一去分析。當整體而言,若判斷權利範圍為適格的專利,可以引入相關分析;但是,若難判斷,則可以去仔細針對各要素衡量是否具有專利性。
[原文]
The factors below should be considered when analyzing the claim as a whole to evaluate whether a method claim is directed to an abstract idea. However, not every factor will be relevant to every claim and, as such, need not be considered in every analysis. When it is determined that the claim is patent-eligible, the analysis may be concluded. In those instances where patent-eligibility cannot easily be identified, every relevant factor should be carefully weighed before making a conclusion. Additionally, no factor is conclusive by itself, and the weight accorded each factor will vary based upon the facts of the application. These factors are not intended to be exclusive or exhaustive as there maybe more pertinent factors depending on the particular technology of the claim. For assistance in applying these factors, please consult the accompanying “Interim Guidance” memo and TC management.

判斷專利適格的要素(factors)整理如下,除了引用具有machine或是transformation的條件,另有判斷是否是實施自然律來檢驗抽象概念或是純方法的專利標的,並且應該是要有用的非抽象表示:
有關適格的要素:
• 請求範圍明確表達或是隱含有機器(machine)或是產生任何轉變(transformation)的技術特徵,其中包括:
  • 只有有特定機器,或是有產生任何轉變(Machine or transformation is particular)
  • 機器或是轉變對專利範圍有意義(Machine or transformation meaningfully limits the execution of the steps)
  • 機器實現權利範圍中的步驟(Machine implements the claimed steps)
  • 權利範圍中有任何物件產生轉變(The article being transformed is particular)
  • 其中物件歷經有轉態或是事物的改變(The article undergoes a change in state or thing (e.g., objectively different function or use))
  • 轉變的物件是一個實體物(The article being transformed is an object or substance)
• 權利範圍為實現自然律
  • 使用特定自然律(Law of nature is practically applied)
  • 權利範圍中的自然律的應用為有意義的限制條件(The application of the law of nature meaningfully limits the execution of the steps)
• 權利範圍並非僅是概念的表達
  • 權利範圍描述特定解決方案(The claim describes a particular solution to a problem to be solved)
  • 權利範圍用一些具體方式實現一個概念(The claim implements a concept in some tangible way)
  • 權利範圍中的步驟應為顯著且為可檢驗的(The performance of the steps is observable and verifiable)
有關不適格的要素,主要是特定的machine或是transformation限制應該是要對權利範圍有意義的(meaningful):
• 權利範圍中沒有明確表達或是隱含有特定機器或是產生轉變
• 權利範圍中對於機器與轉變並未有足夠的描述
  • 權利範圍引入機器或是有產生改變,但仍是表面地關聯其中步驟,比如純粹的資料收集技術,或是僅表示應用的領域
  • 權利範圍中僅一般性地描述可以由任何機器取代的機器(Machine is generically recited such that it covers any machine capable of performing the claimed step(s))
  • 權利範圍僅提出一個執行該方法的一個物體(Machine is merely an object on which the method operates)
  • 轉變僅包括物體位置的改變(Transformation involves only a change in position or location of article)
  • 所謂物體(article)只是一般性概念(“Article” is merely a general concept)
• 權利範圍並非是自然律的應用
  • 權利範圍僅是表示使用一個自然力或是主張一個科學事實(The claim would monopolize a natural force or patent a scientific fact),比如主張產生特定自然律效應的各種模式(e.g., by claiming every mode of producing an effect of that law of nature)
  • 自然律應用於主觀認定的判斷(Law of nature is applied in a merely subjective determination)
  • 自然律僅是名義上的描述,而無關步驟的執行(Law of nature is merely nominally, insignificantly, or tangentially related to the performance of the steps)
• 權利範圍僅是一般概念的描述
  • 權利範圍僅是使用一個概念,而可能核准一個壟斷性的範圍(Use of the concept, as expressed in the method, would effectively grant a monopoly over the concept)
  • 權利範圍同時包括有已知與未知的概念應用,而可能由已存在或是將來才有的機器來實現,或甚至沒有任何裝置(Both known and unknown uses of the concept are covered, and can be performed through any existing or future-devised machinery, or even without any apparatus)
  • 權利範圍僅表達與解決的問題(The claim only states a problem to be solved)
  • 權利範圍僅是無法實現的一般概念(The general concept is disembodied)
  • 權利範圍中描述僅是主觀或是無法察覺的機制(The mechanism(s) by which the steps are implemented is subjective or imperceptible)
文中列舉一些可能為抽象概念的例子:
一般經濟實務或理論
基礎法學理論
數學概念
心智活動
人與人之間的互動與關係
教學概念
人類行為
指導企業實務

Ron

2 則留言:

老麥 提到...

版主大大,這篇文章煩請同意轉貼,我有幾個研究所學弟妹想寫這個CASE!!

EN & Jane's murmur 提到...

歡迎拿去用,不過,內容要仔細再check,怕瞭解地不透徹!
Ron