2012年11月28日 星期三

微軟US7,933,632審查過程克服了101核駁理由

微軟US7,933,632揭示了目前Windows8動態磚的技術內容,專利涉及用於行動裝置的使用者介面,透過多個磚(tiles)表示資料與服務,這些"磚"自動提供各種內容的即時狀態的畫面,並且讓使用者可以隨意改變磚的顯示方式與內容,各"磚"也是連結到各種軟體的快速鍵。

根據各核准範圍獨立項,顯然微軟也是企圖保護更廣的範圍,其中Claim 1界定了在行動裝置上顯示內容的使用者介面,包括取得內容的介面元件、磚空間元件,可以管理多個磚在特定位置顯示動態更新內容,每個磚空間元件可以根據使用者資訊設定,與一顯示磚的顯示元件。另有方法包括以處理器產生客製的顯示空間置放"磚",處理器根據使用者設定選擇各磚,以及顯示在顯示螢幕上。相關系統則限定在處理器與電腦可讀取儲存裝置內的程式步驟。

1. A user interface for a mobile device facilitating surfacing of content available through the mobile device, comprising:
an interface component that obtains the content;
a tile space component that manages a plurality of tiles dynamically updated based at least in part on the content and the plurality of tiles positioned within a tile space, wherein the tile space component includes a profile component that manages at least one user profile and the plurality of tiles are selected from a set of available tiles based at least in part on the at least one user profile; and
a display component that displays a view of the tile space.
11. A processor-implemented method, comprising:
a processor generating a customizable display space capable of managing a plurality of dynamically updating tiles;
the processor populating the customizable display space with the plurality of tiles, wherein the plurality of tiles are selected from a set of available tiles based at least in part on at least one user profile; and
displaying a view of the display space on a display screen of a mobile device.
17. A system comprising a processor and a computer-readable storage device, the device storing executable instructions that when processed by said processor cause said processor to implement the steps comprising:
generating a customizable tile space capable of managing a plurality of tiles;
populating the customizable tile space with the plurality of tiles;
selecting one or more tiles from a set of available tiles based at least in part on a user profile;
dynamically updating the plurality of tiles with the one or more selected tiles based at least in part on content of the selected one or more tiles; and
displaying a view of the tile space.

事實上,最後呈現的上述各項範圍中,在審查過程中遭遇過101的核駁理由,以下整理一點此案的答辯過程。

第一次OA中,Claims 11-20不符35USC101規定,引用Bilski判例,認為專利範圍Claims 11-16並未連結特定硬體或是有任何可專利性的轉換(different state or thing),非101所界定可專利的標的。
 再對Claims 17-20提出101核駁,原因是認為其為電腦程式本身(computer program per se),非具體的東西(physical "things"),電腦程式與其他元件沒有結構或功能的關聯。
於是,微軟提出的解決方案就是於Claim 11併入「processor-implemented」的描述,並且引入「a processor」以及processor的工作。

 對於Claim 17,前言併入「a processor and a computer-readable storage medium」儲存可執行指令的描述,並同時將means for的寫法刪除,而改以明確的動作。

 之後,又接獲第二次OA,其中僅針對Claim 17仍不滿足"該審查委員"認定的應有硬體特徵的要求,尤其是"系統"應為具有電腦程式的載體(device, carrier, media),如硬碟、CD等,認為前次修改併入的"computer-readable storage medium",堅稱其中的medium為一種載波(carrier wave)形式,用於描述傳送與接收電子訊號,非法定可專利的標的。
 於是,微軟簡單地將medium改為device,並沒有任何爭辯。
 

Ron
其他參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/11/live-tilesus6724403.html

日本對軟體專利的態度

根據日本專利局作出的軟體專利的審查基準,可以看出日本專利局(或法院)對軟體專利的態度,首先,先將軟體相關發明(Software Related Inventions)分為兩類:

(1) Process category(流程)軟體相關發明可以一序列時間相關的流程與運作(in a sequence of processes or operations connected in time series),通常以方法請求項表示;
(2) Product category(產品)當軟體相關發明以多功能的組合(a combination of multiple functions)表示時,該發明可以功能描述的產品表示(product invention by specifying those functions)。

此類程式可以以下幾種方式提出專利範圍:

(a) 記載程式的電腦可讀取儲存媒體,此為一種產品發明,儲存媒體內記載了特定型式的資料結構(structured data),特別是其中程式是可以電腦所執行;

文中提出幾個寫作範例(英文):
範例一(以程序為主):
A computer-readable storage medium having a program recorded thereon;
where the program make the computer execute procedure A, procedure B, procedure C,

範例二(手段用語):
A computer-readable storage medium having a program recorded thereon;
where the program make the computer operate means A, means B, means C, ...
範例三(功能用語):
A computer-readable storage medium having a program recorded thereon;
where the program is to provide function A, function B, function C...
範例四(直接界定資料的內容):
A computer-readable storage medium having structured data recorded thereon;
where the structured data comprises portion A, portion B, portion C, ...


(b) 不一定要用儲存媒體作為載體,可直接界定以電腦執行多種功能的程式,此同樣視為產品發明:


範例五:
A program which makes the computer execute procedure A, procedure B, procedure C, ...
範例六:
A program which make the computer operate means A, means B, means C, …
範例七:
A program which make the computer realize function A, function B, function C, …


列舉幾個不符規定的請求範圍寫法:
範例一:
An order-receiving method using a computer to execute a step to accept a commodity order from a customer, a step to check the inventory of the ordered commodity, and a step to respond the customer if the commodity can be delivered or not depending on the inventory condition.
此例以使用電腦的指令接收方法("using a computer" ...)作為專利標的,但其中"using a computer"會被認為是計算工具,且會被視為是人類的操作(human operation)
,而其中的判斷"if"的寫法會被認為有不清楚的描述,因此不符軟體專利的規定。

範例二:
A computer to solve a puzzle using the right-brain inference rule. (The right-brain inference rule is not defined in the description of the invention.)
此例中,明顯提到"right-brain inference rule"並非界定在發明說明中,也非一般知悉的技術,引此發明無法讓人據以實施,當有特定物品界定發明係以另一物品所界定的發明,其中非有技術連結時,發明不明確。

範例三:
A compiler apparatus comprising a means to perform lexical analysis at a high speed and a means to perform syntax analysis, where the both means are enabled to run in parallel.
此例中,雖專利標的為明確的compiler apparatus,但內文提到high speed為模糊的比較用語,會致使發明範圍不明確。


後記,根據審查基準的註記,只要不是直接顯示程式本身,日本專利局對於軟體專利是採較寬廣的態度,

Ron
資料參考:http://www.sipo.gov.cn/dtxx/gw/2002/200804/t20080401_351305.html

2012年11月27日 星期二

實現數學方法的程式僅為抽象的資料結構不能專利

談案例:In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

此案例造成一個電腦程式不可專利的判斷條件:

Claims define non-statutory processes if they:
•    Consist solely of mathematical operations without some claimed practical application;
•    Simply manipulate abstract ideas without some claimed practical application e.g. the court held that a method of conducting a real estate bidding process was a mere manipulation of an abstract idea In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 293-94, 30 USPQ2d 1455, 1458-59 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court also held that a method for controlling the motion of objects and machines is simply a manipulation of abstract ideas; and the steps of "locating" a medial axis and "creating" a bubble hierarchy describes nothing more than the manipulation of basic mathematical constructs. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361-62, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir.).

在不少電腦軟體相關的案例中引用1994年Warmerdam在聯邦巡迴上訴法院的判決(In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 1994)),此案例同樣出現在MPEP2106.01所揭示電腦相關非法定可專利的標的(computer-related nonstatutory subject matter)。

Warmerdam案例涉及在電腦記憶體內儲存具有特定資料結構(data structure)是否為可專利標的:其中,如果儲存於記憶體內的電腦程式為一種法定由程序描述的產品(product-by-process),則為可專利標的;反之,如果僅反映一種概念,則非可專利的程序。(claim to computer having a specific data structure stored in memory held statutory product-by-process claim but claim to a data structure that referred to ideas reflected in nonstatutory process rather than referring to a physical arrangement of the contents of a memory held nonstatutory)

Warmerdam案例簡述:涉及的專利為:07/430,749,在此案審查階段,曾對1993年BPAI作出的決定(Appeal No. 92-3680)提出上訴,因為BPAI作出如專利局認為該案不符101、112的規定。

07/430,749專利涉及控制物件移動的方法、裝置與機器,也就是一種可以防止撞到東西的機器人!
在所載的技術中,會判斷物件邊緣的形狀、位置,進而能夠迴避,而前案則是透過假設物件較大與一般如圓形的形狀,並假設出各種可能碰撞的動作,因此749案則是改善此前案,利用一種氣泡系統(bubble system)的先前技術,判斷碰撞的可能後,將如前案假設的形狀改為多個較小尺寸的區域(氣泡)。
是有點難懂,技術如此案最後獲准的範圍Claim 1,利用資料結構以位置與氣泡階層的方式表示具體物件的形狀,步驟包括訂出物件的中軸位置與建立中軸上的氣泡階層。

所謂氣泡階層可參考圖式,也就是透過氣泡所佔的範圍計算可能碰撞的區域,進而避免碰撞。



重點在於是利用計算機程式產生氣泡階層以及得到氣泡的位置,說明書也記載了多頁的程式內容,甚至權利範圍也包括了以數學方程式所界定的氣泡產生方法。


(原上訴範圍)
1. A method for generating a data structure which represents the shape of [sic] physical object in a position and/or motion control machine as a hierarchy of bubbles, comprising the steps of:

first locating the medial axis of the object and

then creating a hierarchy of bubbles on the medial axis.

101 Rejections在智慧局審查階段,審查委員認為其中專利範圍不符美國專利法第101條,甚至到訴願委員會(BPAI)都認為權利範圍僅涉及抽象概念與數學演算法等的資料結構。
其中,Warmerdam認為權利範圍已經隱含(imply)計算物件邊界的具體方案,並引用In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 12 USPQ2d 1824 (Fed.Cir.1989)判決認為此類具有實體意義的技術應具有可專利性;並且認為即便權利範圍表達為以數學型式表達,如果非僅概念的操作,且其中程序描述不同於前案,而為法定可專利的標的時,仍不能排除可專利的可能。

於是Warmerdam繼續上訴,但是,CAFC如訴願委員所決定,認定Warmerdam專利所界定的範圍為基於數學方法的步驟,且不滿足過去曾經判斷即便為數學方法但是有解決具體問題仍可專利的條件。

CONCLUSIONCAFC確認部份範圍為不可專利的標的,如Claims 1-4, 6,而Claim 5可被專利!
The decision of the Board, sustaining the rejection of claims 1-4, and 6 for lack of statutory subject matter, is affirmed, and the decision of the Board, sustaining the rejection of claim 5 for indefiniteness, is reversed.

註:
但此案最後仍經過修正獲准專利,與上述原範圍比對,可以看出法院可核准範圍已經補入"having a memory"
(之後經過答辯修正後可核准的專利範圍)
1. A machine having a memory which contains a data structure which represents the shape of a physical object in a position and/or motion control machine as a hierarchy of bubbles generated by a method comprising the steps of:
first locating the medial axis of the object and
then creating a hierarchy of bubbles on the medial axis.
Ron

2012年11月26日 星期一

專利可保護課題與電腦程式

筆記
MPEP界定專利可保護的課題(patent subject matter eligibility),電腦可讀取媒體(computer-readable media)成為電腦程式與硬體連結專利性判斷的重要關鍵,可參閱另一篇最近的案例描述,http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/08/blog-post_6.html,可見法院與專利局逐漸有一致的看法。

電腦程式所實現的發明,其發明功能(function of the invention)成為可專利與否的關鍵,在MPEP 2106中提到: "Of importance is the significance of the data and their manipulation in the real world, i.e., what the computer is doing.":

為了取得一個專利,首先自然先是揭露足以讓人瞭解發明的實施方式(說明書),至少要揭露可以與先前技術區隔的相對重要的特徵,接著專利局將進行評價(審查),根據MPEP 2106所規範的評價要件(可專利性的條件):

(A) 判斷出該發明的功能(function);
(B) 判斷出完成至少一個實際應用的特徵(feature)。

MPEP 2106.01訂出電腦相關非法定專利標的:表示描述資訊本身(descriptive material per se)的資料結構(data structure),以及表示電腦程序本身(computer listings per se)的電腦程式(computer program)。

其中提到,何謂「descriptive material per se」 ,就是沒有紀錄在電腦可讀取媒體(computer-readable media)的資料結構,此類資料結構並未定義出與發明概念的結構上或功能性的關聯,因此並非法定可專利的客體。如此可知,電腦可讀取媒體則是建立此關聯的重要關鍵! 

而電腦程序本身則因為並非實體的物體,既非電腦元件也非流程,電腦程序與其他電腦元件也因為沒有結構與功能的關聯,因此並非可專利的客體。如此可知,電腦可讀取媒體也為建立此結構或功能關聯的重要特徵

電腦程式實現的發明並非電腦程式本身:
電腦程式通常會引述在權利範圍的一部分,因此專利審查委員在審理這類權利範圍時,應判斷這些電腦程式是否成為其他可專利的製造或機械的一部分,如此,這樣的權利範圍並無關電腦程式本身,因此為可專利的客體。
比如,用於電腦化的流程(computerized process)的電腦程式的可專利與否將視此流程的專利性,非涉及電腦程式本身。專利局將認為此為process claim,非computer program per se。

 

2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility

(可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/08/mpep-2106-ii-c.html

B.    Review the Detailed Disclosure and Specific Embodiments of the Invention To Understand What the Applicant Has Invented

The written description will provide the clearest explanation of the applicant's invention, by exemplifying the invention, explaining how it relates to the prior art and explaining the relative significance of various features of the invention. Accordingly, USPTO personnel should continue their evaluation by
(A) determining the function of the invention, that is, what the invention does when used as disclosed (e.g., the functionality of the programmed computer) (Arrhythmia, 958 F.2d at 1057, 22 *USPQ2d at 1036, "It is of course true that a modern digital computer manipulates data, usually in binary form, by performing mathematical operations, such as addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, or bit shifting, on the data. But this is only how the computer does what it does. Of importance is the significance of the data and their manipulation in the real world, i.e., what the computer is doing."); and
(B) determining the features necessary to accomplish at least one asserted practical application.
Patent applicants can assist the USPTO by preparing applications that clearly set forth these aspects of an invention.

2106.01 Computer-Related Nonstatutory Subject Matter

I.    FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL: "DATA STRUCTURES" REPRESENTING DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL PER SE OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS REPRESENTING COMPUTER LISTINGS PER SE

Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical "things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a computer element which defines structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions.
Computer programs are often recited as part of a claim. USPTO personnel should determine whether the computer program is being claimed as part of an otherwise statutory manufacture or machine. In such a case, the claim remains statutory irrespective of the fact that a computer program is included in the claim. The same result occurs when a computer program is used in a computerized process where the computer executes the instructions set forth in the computer program. Only when the claimed invention taken as a whole is directed to a mere program listing, i.e., to only its description or expression, is it descriptive material per se and hence nonstatutory.
Since a computer program is merely a set of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer program itself is not a process and USPTO personnel should treat a claim for a computer program, without the computer-readable medium needed to realize the computer program's functionality, as nonstatutory functional descriptive material. When a computer program is claimed in a process where the computer is executing the computer program's instructions, USPTO personnel should treat the claim as a process claim. ** When a computer program is recited in conjunction with a physical structure, such as a computer memory, USPTO personnel should treat the claim as a product claim.

Ron

2012年11月22日 星期四

韓國對軟體專利的態度

筆記

資料參考:http://fishiplaw.com/strategic-patenting/chapter-10---pct-and-foreign-patent-practice--procedure_53.html

如一般判斷,在韓國可專利的電腦程式實現的發明,如果是以具有特定功能的物品(product with specified functions),或是具有特定步驟的方法(method with specified steps),為可專利的標的。

如果軟體程式涉及硬體或裝置的限制,或是涉及記錄軟體的媒體,也為可核准的專利標的。

但電腦程式本身並非為法定可專利的標的(Computer software is not patentable as a program or a data structure per se.)

商業方法如果為硬體所實現,同樣為可專利標的,韓國專利允許商業自動裝置,但排除純商業方法的可專利性。


根據一份韓國專利局提供的"瞭解韓國專利法"的文件中所提到相關電腦軟體的可專利性,其中第三章的B節有電腦軟體與商業方法的相關內容,定義所謂的"軟體(software)",為系統計畫、流程與揭露如何使用電腦的方法手冊;"程式(program)"指的是一些在電腦中執行資料處理的指令語言的組合。
程式本身因為非屬使用自然法則的範疇,不能賦予專利;商業方法則是屬於電腦軟體相關發明,也非使用自然法則的技術。但重要的是,如果軟體程式與硬體、網路結合,可被認為是使用自然法則的技術。

B. Utilization of the law of nature
...
As far as laws of nature are concerned, there is a debate in the intelligence information
era of the 21st century regarding new technology in the field of computer software and
Business Method (BM) patents
. Software includes, but is not limited to, a system plan,
flow chart, or a manual that discloses a method of how to use a computer as a system
that creates and operates a program. A program means a combination of command language for conducting data processing in the computer whether it is in use of any laws
of nature or not.
A program is considered similar to calculating a formula. As an expression of man’s
intellectual process in the existing law, application for a program itself is rejected on
the basis of not utilizing a law of nature. Examples of rejected applications for programs
include cases where the program is a method or a device that increases or controls the
capacity of hardware as a distinguished type of hardware and apparatus or media that
is capable of computer decoding.
In addition, BM patents belong in the category of computer software related inventions.
They are combined as operating methods and computer technologies on the internet to
protect various operating methods or business ideas with patents operated through the
internet. At present, pure business models conducted by social norms, mutual agreements,
human psychological judgment or administrative authorities’ action due to artificial determination shall not be admitted as a law of nature invention.
If a software application program is realized in combination with hardware using internet, it shall be deemed to use a law of nature.

http://www.kipo.go.kr/upload/en/download/Understanding_the_Patent_Act_of_the_Republic_of_Korea.pdf


Ron

2012年11月20日 星期二

韓國設計專利

韓國設計專利包括有實審制(Substantive Examination System (SES))與非實審制(Non-Substantive Examination System (NSES))兩種。

為了符合申請人希望快速審查與漸漸增多短生命週期的設計趨勢,目前韓國設計專利的制度引入了前述的非實審制(1998年), 讓申請人可以在一到兩個月取得設計專利,也提供核准後的異議制度(Post-Grant Opposition)與相關訴願制度。

其中非實審制(NSES)也就是登記就取得專利的制度,適用於較短產品週期的保護,根據韓國專利局網站的揭示,適用於食物、衣物、配飾、包包、皮夾、鞋類、床上用品、毯子、家庭用品、家具、教學和繪畫材料、文具及書寫用品、紙張和印刷材料、包裝、容器、電腦設備、顯示器等等。

非實審制流程如下,主要的審查步驟為型式審查(formality check),主要是要判斷所請求的設計是否符合工業實用性、是否為形狀、圖案、顏色與其組合的標的物,另包括判斷是否含有不可專利的內容,如國旗、國徽、軍旗與相關的裝飾與排列,更不可有違反風俗與道德的圖案,也不能與其他人事業有關的內容,或僅功能相關的設計。
(i) designs that are identical or similar to the national flag, national emblem, military flags, decorations, orders of merit, badges and medals of public organizations, national flags and national emblems of foreign countries, or characters or indications of international organizations;
(ii) designs whose meaning or content is liable to contravene the public order or morality;
(iii) designs liable to give rise to confusion over articles connected with another person's business; and
(iv) designs consisting solely of a shape that is essential to secure the functions of the article.
 

實審制(SES)則如一般熟知的制度,需要檢驗新穎性(novelty)與創造性(creativity)。實審制下的設計專利審查期間若遇到核駁理由,此時仍可要求早期公開,一旦被公開,申請人即可對可能侵權對象提出警告,而他人亦可提供專利性相關的資料供審查委員參考。

 實審制流程如下,進入實際審查的流程中,會先進行不同於非實審制的型式審查,審查得內容有是否清楚、是否有未揭露的相關人員、判斷是否非以韓文申請、沒有圖、沒有描述、非韓國人卻未有代理人的情況。
1) where the kind of application is not clear;
2) where the name or address of a person (or juridicial person) who handles the procedure (i.e., the applicant) is not described;
3) where the application is not written in Korean;
4) where the application is not accompanied by drawings;
5) where the article(s) in which the design is embodied is not described; or
6) where the application is submitted by a person who has no address or place of business in the Republic of Korea, without a representative addressed in the Republic of Korea.


Ron
資料參考:KIPO
其他參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/11/blog-post_15.html

2012年11月19日 星期一

IP5的統計

資料來源:http://www.fiveipoffices.org
IP5的介紹可以參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/12/ip5.html

這五個主要專利國出產了世界上80%的專利案,透過合作、分享專利審查、一致化專利審查的標準來增加專利審查的效率,以及增進專利審查與專利本身的質量。

從一些統計數字可以得到這些主要專利申請國的一些表現(made on May 2010),雖然台灣無法參與,也不可能選擇從PCT進入任何國家,但是從這些統計仍可看到自己的角色!

(1) 從"直接"進入EPO的申請案量來看,歐洲國家自然是最多的,接著如日本、美國到2009年都有8000多件;對於從PCT再進入EPO的案量來看,似乎這些國家的申請案更偏愛這樣的申請程序,比如歐洲國家這樣的申請方式反而比直接進入EPO更多,有3萬4千多件,美國有2萬多件。中國尚不太捧場!
(2) 從"直接"進入JPO的案量來看,日本公司貢獻了28萬件,但已經比過去都少,其他國家以美國貢獻最多。若以從PCT進入JPO來看,歐洲、美國的申請人顯然比較喜歡這樣!
(3) 對於日漸強大的韓國,直接進入韓國的韓國申請人案量有12萬多,其次是關係最密切的日本,大多數國家比較會從PCT進入JPO,歐洲、日本與美國都有七八千件。中國顯然仍是不太理會!
(4) "直接"進入中國的申請案,以中國本土企業為最大,有22萬多件,其他主要國家頗為平均有幾千件。顯然大家比較偏愛從PCT進入中國,歐洲國家有2萬多件、日本有1萬3千件、美國有1萬5千多件(2009年)。
(5) 美國顯然是個大家都很捧場的申請標的,2009年歐洲國家"直接"進入美國的就有近5萬件,日本有6萬多件、韓國有2萬件、美國自己有21萬件。從PCT進入美國的也不少,最多的是善用PCT系統的歐洲國家!

Ron
資料參考:http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2012/12-69.jsp

2012年11月15日 星期四

韓國設計專利號碼

韓國專利檢索頁(英文版):http://eng.kipris.or.kr/eng/main/main_eng.jsp

韓國專利號碼本身已經表達其型式,如先前已經筆記過,號碼內有三種資訊:type, year and number,其中type:發明為10、新型為20,新式樣(設計)則為30,如下範例:



相關部落格文章:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/09/blog-post_29.html

即便是處於競爭狀態,專利局仍是很有水準地核准Apple平板電腦專利(目前為登記制更正updated on Nov.15,2012),如:
3020110034426

3020100026012

3020100026013


Ron
感謝同事的問題,讓我又有KR的內容可以寫!

Apple的Bounce-Back觸控專利無效?

相關專利描述可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/07/20.html
...蘋果以所謂的「overscroll bounce」的US7469381381案)要求對手支付每個單位(每個行動裝置)2.02美金的權利金,...

Apple在觸控顯示器上的彈回專利與相關觸控技術是否是有效專利,可以看看以下證據(有影片),其中「Diamond touch」的計畫由三菱電子實驗室( Mitsubishi Electronic Research Laboratory (MERL))自2001年開始,應該是有效的前案!另有一個證據為2004年開發的「LaunchTile system」,其中的使用者界面曾應用在HP iPAQ上。

證據一:
Circle Twelve的DIAMOND TOUCH:

http://www.circletwelve.com/

影片中可以清楚看到兩個特徵:觸控放大特定視窗,以及多手指觸控,文章特別提出讓使用者將影像放在一個視窗以下,此時產生一個重複的影像,如果不放手最後會回到原來的位置,這個視覺效果類似蘋果的反彈(bounce back)的效果。三星即引用此影片揭示的動作要求法官作出381案專利無效(專利的優先權時間可溯及2007年1月的provisional application)的判斷。
(...allows users to pull an image down in a window, revealing a duplicate image right above it; letting go causes the image to snap back to its original position, providing a visual effect that appeared quite similar to Apple's bounce-back effect...)

這個"前案"的效果是,根據相關文章表示,任何人可以輕易進入該實驗室參觀此技術,並且甚至此計畫主持人Adam Bogue曾於2003年向Apple展示這個產品
但是,Adam Bogue承認,相關放大縮小的觸控功能確實是在Apple的開發之後!

證據二:
在LaunchTile system的使用者界面呈現在不同畫面前後滑動時,有類似彈回的視覺效果,不果,賈伯斯曾經提到這個前案並未有如381案中在各畫面之間的邊緣的空白區域,因為這個區域的變化產生彈回的視覺效果。
(... the system didn't reveal empty space scrolling past the edge of the screen — an important component of Apple's '381 patent.)
三星視為這個前案為381案重要的先前技術!

LaunchTile:



可以再看一下381案的權利要求:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
at a device with a touch screen display:
displaying a first portion of an electronic document;
detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
in response to detecting the movement, translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion;
in response to an edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display:
displaying an area beyond the edge of the document, and
displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion; and
in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display, translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion.
19. A device, comprising:
a touch screen display;
one or more processors;
memory; and
one or more programs, wherein the one or more programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, the programs including:
instructions for displaying a first portion of an electronic document;
instructions for detecting a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
instructions for translating the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement;
instructions for displaying an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and displaying a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, in response to the edge of the electronic document being reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and
instructions for translating the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.
20. A computer readable storage medium having stored therein instructions, which when executed by a device with a touch screen display, cause the device to:
display a first portion of an electronic document;
detect a movement of an object on or near the touch screen display;
translate the electronic document displayed on the touch screen display in a first direction to display a second portion of the electronic document, wherein the second portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting the movement
display an area beyond an edge of the electronic document and display a third portion of the electronic document, wherein the third portion is smaller than the first portion, if the edge of the electronic document is reached while translating the electronic document in the first direction while the object is still detected on or near the touch screen display; and
translate the electronic document in a second direction until the area beyond the edge of the electronic document is no longer displayed to display a fourth portion of the electronic document, wherein the fourth portion is different from the first portion, in response to detecting that the object is no longer on or near the touch screen display.

Ron
資料參考:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/13/3240686/samsung-apple-patents-launchtile-diamondtouch-table

2012年11月14日 星期三

切餅專利侵權案(二)

在上一篇提到的切餅侵權案中,透過其中判決文所提到的爭點可以學到一些事情,隨意整理一下。

更正一下前篇提到的專利範圍,最後獲准的範圍如下,顯然是在答辯過程限縮過的,主要特徵經過粗體標示:
[Claim 1] (JPO機器翻譯)
On the side periphery surface which is a placing bottom surface of cut rice cake which is a rectangular wafer rice cake object, or not a flat upper surface but a reorganization side surface of an upper surface part of this wafer rice cake object, contour shape which is placed on a gridiron, is roasted and is eaten, Provide 1 which has length in this hoop direction by making a direction along this reorganization side surface into a hoop direction, two or more notching parts, or a groove part, and this notching part or groove part, As a notching part formed in opposite 2 side surface on the surface of a side periphery which is the aforementioned reorganization side surface or it made this hoop direction carry out round continuation by having made a direction along this reorganization side surface into a hoop direction and considered it as the shape of a square ring, or a groove part, Rice cake which changes with the characteristics a thing to outside by expansion constituted so that it might spurt out and might be inhibited into the state where contents which it faced roasting, was raised to the bottom above the aforementioned notching part or a groove part, and were plumped between up-and-down ovenware shaped parts like the midst or sandwiches are sandwiched, by carrying out expansion deformation.

(1)
日本專利法中規範侵權行為與賠償的法條在第100條:侵權行為及於產品、製造產品的流程、由侵權行為製作的產品,並可要求移除使用於侵權行為的設施。
[英文版]
Article 100 (Right to seek injunction)
(1) A patentee or exclusive licensee may demand a person who infringes or is likely to infringe the patent right or exclusive license to stop or prevent such infringement.
(2) In making a demand under the preceding paragraph, the patentee or exclusive licensee may demand measures necessary for the prevention of such infringement including the disposal of products constituting such act of infringement (including, in the case of a patented invention of a process of producing products, products produced by the act of infringement; the same shall apply in Article 102(1)) and the removal of facilities used for the act of infringement.

(2)
解釋專利範圍,經過法院解釋後,其範圍限定為(A)用在烤架上的方形年糕/米糕/米餅(這幾種名稱是我的認知);(B)"糕體"頂部非平坦,側面方向有個一定長度的"槽部";(C)切口在周圍兩個側邊的對應側;(D)當烘烤時會膨脹,其中的內容會溢出。
顯然法官解釋的專利範圍已經引入不少說明書所載的實施例,恰巧被控侵權物仍是落入這個解釋範圍內。

(3)
法院拆解疑似侵權物後,解構後要件有:
(A)用在烤架上;(B)形狀為長方形的年糕;(C)有上下表面、長短邊、凹槽;(D)側邊凹槽有垂直與平行的。

(4)
爭點有三:(一)是否為相同技術領域;(二)專利權行使是否有限制;(三)賠償金額。
其中是否能行使專利權是因為被控方提出該專利並不明確(清晰),法院回應該專利核准於"舊"專利法,並未違反該專利法的規定,並且請求項已經明確界定範圍,無不明確的問題。
被控方提出請求項不被說明書所支持,包括非平坦表面的描述,並且提到經過烘烤不會被影響其外觀,與前述解釋提到烘烤會膨脹的特徵不符,但法院認為說明書已經支撐請求項
被控方提出本領域技術人員無法根據該專利而據以實施,法院認為無此問題。
被控方提出該專利的具體結構並未完整描述,包括內容物、膨脹的狀態、燒烤過程等,但法院認為已經請求項的描述足以實現該發明。
被控方更提出有前案足以使該專利不具新穎性、進步性(容易想到),專利權人則是提出相關證據證明前案與該專利的差異,甚至提出當時的新聞報導。

(5)
賠償金額的規定在日本專利法第102條:賠償金額將根據是否故意或是不小心的侵權行為,並包括因為侵權而得的利潤。
[英文版]
Article 102 (Presumption of Amount of Damage, etc.)
(2) Where a patentee or an exclusive licensee claims against an infringer compensation for damage sustained as a result of the intentional or negligent infringement of the patent right or exclusive license, and the infringer earned profits from the act of infringement, the amount of profits earned by the infringer shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by the patentee or exclusive licensee.
(3) A patentee or an exclusive licensee may claim against an infringer compensation for damage sustained as a result of the intentional or negligent infringement of the patent right or exclusive license, by regarding the amount the patentee or exclusive licensee would have been entitled to receive for the working of the patented invention as the amount of damage sustained.


Ron
資料來源:http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20101203173939.pdf

2012年11月13日 星期二

切餅專利侵權案(一)

很少機會看到日本專利訴訟,看到這件有關食品的專利訴訟,在此報告。

Echigoseika Co., Ltd.(越後製菓株式会社)贏了與Sato Foods Co., Ltd.(佐藤食品工業株式會社)的專利侵權訴訟。此案為經過上訴日本最高法院的訴訟案,最後判決佐藤食品工業株式會應支付越後製菓株式会社8億日圓的損害賠償(原本要求14億8千萬日圓的賠償),並且佐藤食品也改了米餅/米糕的設計。

此訴訟案涉及越後製菓株式会社擁有的切米糕的包裝專利(特許第4111382号/特願2002-318601/ 特開2004-147598)。

權利範圍如下,請求項1所界定的「方形或圓形米糕(rice cake)的包裝」,上表面具有兩個凹部或是圍繞週邊的凹槽。如下圖,其實就是個方形或圓形的米糕盒,米糕盒1具有上表面部2(側邊為2A)以及多處凹部3,底下兩圖用刀5對此盒切過,可以形成兩道凹部。透過這種切割方式,可以保有經過烘培過的米糕的外觀,避免因為切割被破壞,而可方便食用。

 

【特許請求の範囲】
【請求項1】
角形の切餅や丸形の丸餅などの小片餅体の載置底面ではなく上側表面部に、周方向に長さを有する若しくは周方向に配置された一若しくは複数の切り込み部又は溝部を設けたことを特徴とする餅。
【請求項2】
角形の切餅や丸形の丸餅などの小片餅体の平坦頂面や載置底面ではなく上側表面部の側周表面に、周方向に長さを有する若しくは周方向に配置された一若しくは複数の切り込み部又は溝部を設けたことを特徴とする請求項1記載の餅。
【請求項3】
角形の切餅や丸形の丸餅などの小片餅体の載置底面ではなく上側表面部に、周方向に連続させてほぼ環状とした若しくは周方向に沿って複数配置してほぼ環状に配置した切り込み部又は溝部を設けたことを特徴とする請求項1,2のいずれか1項に記載の餅。
【請求項4】
丸餅などの輪郭形状がほぼ円形の小片餅体の上側表面部の周辺傾斜面である側周表面に、この輪郭縁に沿う方向を周方向としてこの周方向に長さを有する若しくは周方向に配置された一若しくは複数の切り込み部又は溝部を設けたことを特徴とする請求項2記載の餅。
【請求項5】
丸餅などの輪郭形状がほぼ円形の小片餅体の上側表面部の周辺傾斜面である側周表面に、この輪郭縁に沿う方向を周方向としてこの周方向に連続させてほぼ丸環状とした若しくは周方向に沿って複数配置してほぼ丸環状に配置した切り込み部又は溝部を設けたことを特徴とする請求項2,3及び4に記載の餅。
【請求項6】
切餅などの輪郭形状がほぼ方形の小片餅体の上側表面部の立直側面である側周表面に、この立直側面に沿う方向を周方向としてこの周方向に長さを有する若しくは周方向に配置された一若しくは複数の切り込み部又は溝部を設けたことを特徴とする請求項2記載の餅。
【請求項7】
切餅などの輪郭形状がほぼ方形の小片餅体の上側表面部の立直側面である側周表面に、この立直側面に沿う方向を周方向としてこの周方向に連続させてほぼ角環状とした若しくは周方向に沿って複数配置してほぼ角環状に配置した切り込み部又は溝部を設けたことを特徴とする請求項2,3及び6に記載の餅。
【請求項8】
前記切り込み部又は溝部は、周方向に連続させてほぼ環状に設けたことを特徴とする請求項1~7のいずれか1項に記載の餅。

被告"佐藤食品工業株式會社"的產品示意圖如下,摘自判決文,其中示意有切割的部份。
搜尋到的侵權物(圖案來源:http://item.rakuten.co.jp/satosyokuhin/715185):

判決文中提到幾樣:
1 商品名 「サトウの切り餅 パリッとスリット」
内容量 400g,700g,1kg,2kg
2 商品名 「サトウの鏡餅 サトウのサッと鏡餅 切り餅入り 極小」
3 商品名 「サトウの鏡餅 サトウのサッと鏡餅 切り餅入り 小」
4 商品名 「サトウの鏡餅 サトウのサッと鏡餅 切り餅入り 中」
5 商品名 「サトウの鏡餅 切り餅入り 大」

Ron
資料來源:Harakenz
http://www.courts.go.jp/hanrei/pdf/20101203173939.pdf

2012年11月12日 星期一

hTC與Apple達成10年互不干擾的和解


上個週末科技界最大的事應該就是這一樁:hTC與Apple達成和解!這幾天許多的新聞冒出來(讀了一堆相似度頗高的內容),對hTC應該確實是個大事件,相對於那些透過訴訟擴張版圖的策略來看,對規模與專利佈局比較小的hTC也許是個好消息,雖已經自別的公司取得不少可以對抗Apple的專利,其中也不少已經用來興訟,但這個和解卻可以保障將來多年的"和平",讓hTC進入美國比較沒有阻礙。當然,很難得知這個和解的內容是否有如此理想,尤其是Google/Motorola Mobility的角色就有點尷尬!

共同聲名(摘自Foss Patents):
HTC and Apple Settle Patent Dispute
All Patent Litigation Between the Companies Dismissed
TAIPEI, Taiwan and CUPERTINO, California--November 10, 2012--HTC and Apple® have reached a global settlement that includes the dismissal of all current lawsuits and a ten-year license agreement. The license extends to current and future patents held by both parties. The terms of the settlement are confidential.
'HTC is pleased to have resolved its dispute with Apple, so HTC can focus on innovation instead of litigation,' said Peter Chou, CEO of HTC.
'We are glad to have reached a settlement with HTC,' said Tim Cook, CEO of Apple. 'We will continue to stay laser focused on product innovation.'
和解內容一般都說不曉得,但至少讓兩個公司之間大大小小20件以上的訴訟案件一筆勾消。但如FOSS Patents所言,這與訴訟一樣,都應該有個結果,但是卻無法確認結果為何?在Business Insider的文章引述分析家的結果提到,這個和解大約是hTC每賣出一個Android裝置,就要付給Apple約6至8美金的授權金,hTC在多年前與微軟的和解金則是5美元,因此,至少每賣出一個hTC的Android裝置就要付出至少11美元的金額給別人!

這對每年獲利4百億美元的Apple來說應該不大(hTC每年賣出3千萬台),但是Business Insider作者認為,雖不確定為何有此和解,但是對於先前法院判決Apple可以自Samsung獲取10億美元的結果來看,這或許是一大堆訴訟後大家比較樂見的結果了!


註:
這個消息或許對hTC有好處,但是一旦hTC自這個專利訴訟戰場中消失,是不是會失去一個戰場、失去談判與締結盟友的機會、是不是有反效果?看看Samsung,似乎是這波訴訟的大贏家,不論訴訟結果是否是贏是輸,至少是愈戰愈強,知名度愈高、愈賣愈好!
又如果科技業興起一片和解風,不少訴訟律師、專利業者可能有點失望!連同一些專門以此當題材的部落客或網站也可能會找不太到題材了吧!

Ron
business insider, foss patents

Apple花了2千萬美金買一個鐘

Apple iOS中使用的時鐘圖案(icon)侵害瑞士鐵路公司(Swiss Federal Railways)1944年的時鐘的設計,涉及著作權與商標權

先前的公開聲明:
SBB is the sole owner of the trademark and copyright of the railway clock. The railway company will now get in touch with Apple. The aim is a legal, as well as a financial solution. It is not right that one [Apple] simply copies the design.
 
Hans Hilfiker設計的瑞士鐵路時鐘(來源:Wikipedia)
 Apple iOS上的時鐘(來源:Apple官網):


協議文如下,經過Google翻譯,其中記載SBB(瑞士鐵路公司)與蘋果公司的協議包括可在iPad, iPhone上使用SBB時鐘,
始建於1944工程師和設計師漢斯Hilfiker專為SBB火車站時鐘是一家集設計圖標明顯數字化時代的問題特殊功能的所謂的“瓢撥號”是醒目的紅色秒針,具有的形式的信號的鏝刀至目前為止,她是一個符號創新性和可靠性是一個重要的識別特徵SBB瑞士代表



Ron
資料來源:Mashable

2012年11月11日 星期日

專利與產品:Magic Sipper

如果小朋友不喝牛奶怎麼辦?特別是鮮奶!這時家長可以想的方法還不少,改果汁牛奶、巧克力牛奶、加入阿華田、逼的、哄的、強迫的、交換條見...

有人聰明的用"吸管"著手,這個東西是賣巧克力的人介紹的,小朋友果然接受用這個吸管吸著鮮奶喝,其實就是用吸管中填塞巧克力(或是別種口味)球,特別小而且會快速溶解的球。

果不其然,這個製造商在美國有提出對應產品的專利,就是一個"吸管",吸管兩端封口,但是有保留孔隙,可以裝填這些巧克力或是其它口味的小球,孔隙仍讓小朋友可以吸到牛奶,當牛奶流經這些小球,就順道溶解,使得小朋友喝到的牛奶有自動添加的味道。這種從小地方著手的發明頗為有有趣!

 此圖看出吸管兩端有被壓住封口,因此有點變形,但是仍留有孔隙,不同角度看到的可以證明有被壓扁
主要專利範圍簡單明瞭(尚未核准),有兩端被封口的吸管有裝填食物用的容置空間
1. A straw with two ends, wherein each end is sealed and/or sealable and said straw can serve as a supply container for dry food products.
附屬範圍則逐一形容這個吸管的其他實施態樣。

這是經過試驗確實可以讓小朋友自己喝牛奶的方式,產品上標示有產地、製造商與"Patent Pending"的文字。


Ron