2014年11月14日 星期五

獨立請求項數目計算的討論(about Claims)

有些請求項計算的知識可能需要更正!

在美國,獨立請求項的數目影響了申請費用,一般原則是申請案獨立請求項3項或以下的數量並不會有額外費用,如果經答辯產生超過3項的新增獨立項,會收取超項費用。

這些費用規定可以參考MPEP607以及相關CFR規定:
...
III.   EXCESS CLAIMS FEES
(3/20費用規則)
37 CFR 1.16(h) sets forth the excess claims fee for each independent claim in excess of three. 37 CFR 1.16(i) sets forth the excess claims fee for each claim (whether independent or dependent) in excess of twenty. The excess claims fees specified in 37 CFR 1.16(h) and (i)
(再領證不會重複收費)
also apply to all reissue applications Under 35 U.S.C.41(a)(2), the claims in the original patent are not taken into account in determining the excess claims fee for a reissue application. The excess claims fees specified in 37 CFR 1.16(h) and (i) are required for each independent claim in excess of three that is presented in a reissue application and for each claim (whether independent or dependent) in excess of twenty that is presented in a reissue application.
...

The additional fees, if any, due with an amendment are calculated on the basis of the claims (total and independent) which would be present, if the amendment were entered. The amendment of a claim, unless it changes a dependent claim to an independent claim or adds to the number of claims referred to in a multiple dependent claim, and the replacement of a claim by a claim of the same type, unless it is a multiple dependent claim which refers to more prior claims, do not require any additional fees.

...

不過,如果獨立項寫成引用記載形式的獨立項(獨立項形式,但有依附其他項的描述),該項如何計算?
實務上,我曾看到不同的算法,這應該是因為USPTO判斷的人並非專利專業,而是一般費用計算的程序人員,所以會將引用記載形式的"獨立項"判斷為"附屬項"!

曾經討論的文章有:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/01/blog-post_5213.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/08/blog-post.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/02/about-claims.html多重附屬之"獨立項"
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/10/about-claims-xi-mpep-section-60801n.html(各種形式的請求項,包括USPTO不接受的依附關係)

但最近又有人在討論這種獨立項的算法,其實引用記載形式的獨立項還是"獨立項",計算項次時應該算為獨立項,不過實務上應該如何,我又找了一些範例,甚至也有人介紹我參考以下網頁資料,其實內容也不少不確定的講法(網頁資料僅供參考,不確定內容來源?):

http://www.bpmlegal.com/howtopat7.html 

"It is possible to write claims which are a mixture of method and apparatus:

10. A widget made by the method of claim 1.
11. A method of using the widget of claim 10, comprising the steps of...
Many Examiners will not accept mixed apparatus and method claims, others will. It's best not to confuse things. 

Note: in the 2007 rules changes, which would have become effective November 1, 2007, the USPTO changed the rules to explicitly state that claims of this kind are to be considered independent claims, rather than dependent claims. Thus, the inclusion of this kind of claim would have put you over the three independent claim limit (for the purposes of filing fees). These rules were rescinded on October 8, 2009. Nonetheless, clearly the USPTO does not like this sort of claim and intends to do something about them at some point. It's best to avoid them."

其中有兩段話,在2007頒布的規則,USPTO將以上範例所示的引用記載形式獨立項視為"獨立項",不是附屬項;但有多了一段話說在2009年這個規則已經被撤銷?!!
總歸一句話,這種寫法不建議用!

具有引用記載形式獨立項的費用計算範例:
12/876,140(申請日:2010/9/5)
本案申請時獨立項有Claim 1、Claim 12,以及我們習慣認定為獨立項的Claim 23,Claim 23寫成引用記載形式的獨立項:
費用計算時將Claim 23視為獨立項,共有3項:
有趣的是,用Google Patents查閱專利時,一般會將獨立項用黑體標注,排版也凸出一些,將附屬項則用較灰的方式顯示,這時,這件案子把Claim 23顯示為附屬項,當然這是因為軟體程式自動以是否有依附關係而判讀的原因!

12/986,330(申請日:2011/1/7)
本案申請時獨立項有Claim 1(系統)、Claim 12(應用在系統的裝置)與Claim 13(方法),其中Claim 12寫成引用記載形式的獨立項:

費用計算時並不認Claim 12為獨立項:

14/199,149(申請日:2014/3/6)
此案為英國案再進入美國的申請案,申請時請求項大量採用多重附屬項,且也不排除多重依附多重附屬項的依附關係,甚至也包括向後依附、引用圖式的請求項!因此也做了初步修正(preliminary amendment),顯然是要符合美國專利撰寫規定而作出的修正,修正後獨立項有Claim 1與Claim 9,其中Claim 9寫為如前述請求項之一。


這是申請時的部分請求項,可以看到我們比較不適應的寫法:

 修改後的請求項,將多重附屬項改為單一依附的附屬項,Claim 9保留:
費用謹記一項獨立項,但將Claim 9拆成另外的8項,全部共有16項:

claim index:

再舉一例Apple的美國專利:13/181,913(US8520021)
申請時,獨立請求項Claims 1, 14為沒有其他依附關係的獨立項形式,Claims 21-24為分別界定不同發明標的的引用記載形式的獨立項
申請人提出申請案(7/13/2011)時所填寫專利範圍的超項數目將Claims 21-24視為"獨立項"(也就是Apple代理人也將這類請求項視為獨立項),因此共有6項獨立項,超過有3項獨立項,同時加上了超項費:

有趣的是,USPTO在發出申請收據時(filing receipt,7/25/2011),僅計算出兩項獨立項:
相關的費用也僅計算兩項獨立項,並沒有超項費,請見其中框住的內容:

但經獲准後,又有些費用的變化,算為4項獨立項!這點就真的很納悶了!


此案獲准專利時,權利要求的形式雖有些變化,卻也維持申請時的樣態,其中包括幾項不同發明標的的引用記載形式的獨立項,如Claims 14, 15, 23, 24,另有兩項比較"正常"沒有依附關係的獨立請求項1, 16。列舉其中幾項:

14. A computer system comprising:
one or more displays;
memory; and
one or more processors operatively coupled to the one or more displays and the memory, the memory having stored therein instructions executable by the one or more processors for performing the method of claim 1.
23. A computer system comprising:
one or more displays;
memory; and
one or more processors operatively couple to the one or more displays and the memory, the memory having stored therein instructions executable by the one or more processors for performing the method of claim 14. (其實Claim 14標的為"computer system")
24. A program storage device, readable by one or more programmable control devices, comprising instructions stored thereon for causing the one or more programmable control devices to perform the method of claim 14.


後語:
"引用記載形式獨立項",除了歐洲常見有多項附屬的形式外(不論獨立項或附屬項),其實這是不受歡迎的記載形式。

事實上,獨立項或附屬項,只是因為記載形式的名稱問題,每個請求項,不論是獨立形式或是附屬形式,都界定了一個發明的範圍,附屬項之所以為附屬項是因為在要求簡潔與明確的記載方式下,在大部分特徵已經被在前的請求項所描述的情況下,改為依附形式的附屬範圍。因此,如果一個原本為獨立項的請求項也因為簡潔的考量而寫為依附形式,是否這應該判斷為附屬項?如果寫為互不干擾的獨立項,常常是因為兩個獨立的發明,只是又在同一個發明概念下,可以在符合單一性的要求下以一件申請案提出。

這也是歐洲專利要求僅能提交一項獨立項的基本規則的原因,其他特徵應該都可以寫成附屬項才是,否則被視為有不只一個發明(但仍有例外,比如:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/05/epc-rule-43-claimabout-claims-xxxix.html)。

經本次整理,好像可以看出一些規則!

Ron

沒有留言: