*PATENTLY-O對此案討論的前言提到專利法（以及法院意見）對於申請專利範圍明確性（112(b)）的規定中要求「reasonable certainty」是源自刑法中超越合理懷疑的高標準（beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard），也就是將專利審查委員或法官比喻為刑法中的法官，判斷事實時要採取高標準，在專利範圍就是要有合理確實的條件，要超越合理的懷疑。
2014年美國最高法院案例參考：最高法院對明確性的態度 - Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/nautilus-inc-v-biosig-instruments-inc.html
其中對於明確性（definiteness）的結論如下，專利是否明確，就以申請專利範圍來看，合格的專利範圍應能從申請專利範圍來看出所主張的發明範疇，其要件就是「合理的確實（reasonable certainty）」而讓相關技術人員可以得到發明的範疇。
... a patent is invalid for indefiniteness if its claims, read in light of the specification delineating the patent, and the prosecution history, fail to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art about the scope of the invention. ...
本案例涉及35U.S.C.112（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/09/112.html）相關條文：
(b) CONCLUSION.--The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention applicant regards as his invention.
(f) ELEMENT IN CLAIM FOR A COMBINATION.--An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
（修改痕跡是AIA之後，貼自bitlaw.com）
案例討論前言：申請專利範圍最模糊的寫法莫過於是「means-plus-function」，弔詭的是這種專利範圍的寫法卻多半保護更小的範圍。被認定是這類手段功能用語的寫法不限於「means for, step for」語法，而可涵蓋到一般功能性用語、以功能界定元件等的寫法，核駁理由就是因為專利範圍用語並無引述結構、材料、動作等元素來實現該功能，如此就產生不明確的核駁理由。
本部落格多次討論相關議題，如：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/10/blog-post_24.html
案例討論（Eon Corp v. AT&T (Fed. Cir. 2015)）：
專利權人/原告/上訴人：EON CORPORATION
侵權被告/無效主張：FLO TV, AT&T
判決時間：5/6/2015
案例全文：http://cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1392.Opinion.5-4-2015.1.PDF
系爭專利US5,663,757涉及軟體發明，為以軟體方法控制互動式電視的技術，讓消費者可以在觀賞電視的同時進行線上消費，就軟體方法而言，不可避免的就是以功能界定元件，或是以手段功能用語作為請求項主體，如其Claim 8：
8. A local subscriber's data processing station for a wireless television program communication network coupling together a set of interactive subscriber television receiver stations, comprising in combination,
an operation control system in said data processing station for controlling video signals, system operating modes and interactive communications available to the subscriber,
a television receiver with a video display screen, program control means and television program channel selection means,
a plurality of sources of video text and television program channels available from said network for individual presentation on said display screen in response to operator control by way of paid operation control system,
a programmable computer interconnected with said television receiver and said operation control system,
radio wave transmission and reception means for sending and receiving video and interactive control signal information wirelessly to and from the subscriber television receiver stations in said network including messages with subscriber identification, video text and control signals for said television receiver,
said operation control system providing local station organization and operation in different operating modes permitting various degrees of interactive participation by a local subscriber, including network communication interconnection between the subscriber television receiver stations, television program viewing options, fiscal transactions and audience response modes,
subscriber manual control means for interactive participation and operation of said operation control system over an authorized range of optional features,
monitoring means for generating video displays of instructions and interactive menus on said video screen related to said operating modes,
self contained software programs operable with said operation control system at the subscriber's data processing station for identifying program and operating mode options individually authorized to the subscriber for controlling the local station options by means of said software programs,
means responsive to said self contained software for establishing a mode of operation for selection of one of a plurality of authorized television program channels wherein a channel selection menu identifying authorized channels is displayed automatically on said video screen,
means establishing a first menu directed to different interactively selectable program theme subsets available from said authorized television program channels and means for causing selected themes to automatically display a second menu displaying available television programs relating to that selected theme, means responsive to said subscriber manual control means for selecting a preferred theme from said different themes presented when said first menu is displayed on said screen, and means in said control system for identifying on said second menu said television programs available relating to the selected theme.
專利權人EON在訴訟爭議有幾個重點：A. The Katz Exception
這是EON爭辯專利具有結構特徵的論點，引用In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011)案例，主張即便沒有載入特定程式的一般目的電腦仍可實現專利相關功能。但法院不採，因為Katz例外討論過於狹隘。反之，法院的態度是載入特定程式的一般目的電腦可以成為有特定目的的電腦（This court has since analyzed the “narrow” Katz exception once, finding that it did not apply.）。
B. Role of the Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art
專利權人EON主張如果發明相關技術人員可以實現該軟體功能，微處理器讓軟體功能即具備足夠的結構。法院意見表示，以一般電腦實現手段功能用語的專利範圍時，說明書是否已經揭露特定演算法（特定程式）為一個判斷基礎，並非僅考慮相關技術人員是否可實施，這是要符合35U.S.C.112(f)的規定。
"our case law regarding special purpose computer-implemented means-plus-functions claims is divided into two distinct groups: First, cases in which the specification discloses no algorithm; and second, cases in which the specification does disclose an algorithm"
"the question before us is whether the specification contains a sufficiently precise description of the ‘corresponding structure’ to satisfy section 112, paragraph 6, not whether a person of skill in the art could devise some means to carry out the recited function."
C. Application of the Algorithm Requirement to this Case
CAFC確認地院作出專利範圍不明確的決定，且確認軟體發明中演算法（手段）的必要性。
侵權訴訟經簡易判決之後轉向專利明確性與無效的爭議，以下幾點提到專利無效的議題：
結論：
請求項中功能用語缺乏相關技術手段的揭示，也沒有對應的結構特徵，不符35U.S.C.112(f)的手段功能用語的揭露規定，而CAFC法官更進一步認為，如果是以軟體功能來描述一個技術，其中演算法（技術手段）應為必要揭露要件，因此專利無效。
後語：
如果專利範圍要符合Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig案例的高標準就麻煩了，要明確，又要超越合理的懷疑，如果是這樣，就只好讓申請專利範圍準確地指向發明本身，而沒有模糊的空間。
但多數美國CAFC並不見得會以這標準作為明確性的判斷標準，因為語言本身仍是具有一定的模糊空間，連法院的結論都有不少解釋空間。
若以軟體方法描述發明申請專利範圍，應適當地在說明書或權利範圍中揭露實施範例、演算法等。
本案中，CAFC對於軟體相關發明的可專利性判斷時認為，如果一般目的的電腦載有特定目的的程式即變成具有特殊目的的電腦（"the general purpose computer becomes a special purpose computer when loaded with the special programming"），這太重要了，因此程式演算法應該適當揭示。
補充：
在Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig案例中，CAFC的態度是如果請求項的範圍根據說明書內容與審查歷史（內部證據）都無法讓相關技術人員了解發明的範疇，才可以因為不明確而無效專利；除非是權利範圍有無法解決的模糊（insolubly ambiguous），否則在權利範圍可以透過修正建構時，不能排除具有明確性的可能。
該案最高法院的態度認為CAFC的說法仍有偏差（指insolubly ambiguous），認為申請專利範圍，經參考說明書所指的專利、審查歷史，都無法合理而確實地讓相關技術人員無法得到其發明範疇，如此專利將因不符明確性而無效。
資料參考：
http://cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1392.Opinion.5-4-2015.1.PDF
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/nautilus-inc-v-biosig-instruments-inc.html
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/05/pure-functional-claiming.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言