美國102與歐洲專利實務筆記

筆記

過去有關美國專利102相關報導：

• 判斷核駁理由是102(a)(1)或102(a)(2) - MPEP 706.02(a)(1)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/12/102a1102a2-mpep-70602a1.html）
• 克服102(a)(1)(2)的核駁理由 - MPEP 706.02(B)(1)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/05/102a12-mpep-70602b1.html）
• 美國專利改革AIA後的102條款（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/aia102.html）

[法條與標註]
35 U.S.C. 102 CONDITIONS FOR PATENTABILITY; NOVELTY.

(a) NOVELTY; PRIOR ART.--A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--

(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; or

（阻礙申請案新穎性的條件：公開在前，也就是在申請案有效申請日之前，發明已被專利、印刷公開、公開使用、販售或其方式讓公眾知悉）

(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

（阻礙新穎性的條件：申請在前的美國或WIPO案，也就是在申請案有效申請日之前，發明已被領證專利描述、專利申請案早期公開）

(b) EXCEPTIONS.--

(1) DISCLOSURES MADE 1 YEAR OR LESS BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION.--A disclosure made 1 year or less before the effective filing date of a claimed invention shall not be prior art to the claimed invention under subsection (a)(1) if--

(A) the disclosure was made by the inventor or joint inventor or by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

（如果這個一年內的揭露是發明人或其授權的他人所為，可以排除）

(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

（這個一年內的發明人或授權他人的揭露，若早於其他人的揭露，可以排除他人揭露）

(2) DISCLOSURES APPEARING IN APPLICATIONS AND PATENTS.--A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if--

(A) the subject matter disclosed was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor;

(B) the subject matter disclosed had, before such subject matter was effectively filed under subsection (a)(2), been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor or another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor; or

(C) the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.

(c) COMMON OWNERSHIP UNDER JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENTS.--Subject matter disclosed and a claimed invention shall be deemed to have been owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person in applying the provisions of subsection (b)(2)(C) if--

(1) the subject matter disclosed was developed and the claimed invention was made by, or on behalf of, 1 or more parties to a joint research agreement that was in effect on or before the effective filing date of the claimed invention;

(2) the claimed invention was made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of the joint research agreement; and

(3) the application for patent for the claimed invention discloses or is amended to disclose the names of the parties to the joint research agreement.

(d) PATENTS AND PUBLISHED APPLICATIONS EFFECTIVE AS PRIOR ART.--For purposes of determining whether a patent or application for patent is prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2), such patent or application shall be considered to have been effectively filed, with respect to any subject matter described in the patent or application--

(1) if paragraph (2) does not apply, as of the actual filing date of the patent or the application for patent; or

(2) if the patent or application for patent is entitled to claim a right of priority under section 119, 365(a), 365(b), 386(a), or 386(b), or to claim the benefit of an earlier filing date under section 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), based upon 1 or more prior filed applications for patent, as of the filing date of the earliest such application that describes the subject matter.

補充：「effective filing date」定義：

MPEP 2152.01    EFFECTIVE FILING DATE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION

The AIA defines the term “effective filing date” for a claimed invention in a patent or application for patent (other than a reissue application or reissued patent) as the earliest of: (1) the actual filing date of the patent or the application for the patent containing the claimed invention; or (2) the filing date of the earliest application for which the patent or application is entitled, as to such invention, to a right of priority or the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 119(優先權), 120(接續案), 121(分割案), or 365(PCT優先權). 

整理102(a)(b)：


有人簡化：
102(b)(1)(A)為發明人或從發明人得到的揭露的優惠期限。
102(b)(1)(B)包括由第三方自發明人取得的揭露的優惠期限。
102(b)(2)(A)從發明人得到的揭露。
102(b)(2)(B)從第三方從發明人取得的揭露。
102(b)(2)(C)共同擁有的揭露。

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102雖說是「新穎性」的條件，但仍然是一種「相對性」的概念，面對不同引證案來源提出不同的新穎性規定。

在美國專利法下，首先要認知的是，如果「發明」在其專利申請日（有效申請日）之前已見有「揭露（disclosure）」於美國本土，就是不能獲准專利。

但是，如果這個揭露（disclosure）是由發明人（或其授權對象）揭露，且發生在美國申請案申請日（有效申請日）前12個月內，就可以排除，所謂新穎性優惠期。

但「新穎性優惠期」卻不能排除這個期間內其他人的揭露，也就是若當中有揭露是出自他人（非自發明人或其授權對象所取得）所為，就不能排除。


這裡提到一個例子。發明人在提出專利申請案之前揭露了「XY」，當第三方取得這個「XY」揭露，改變一下，揭露出「XYZ」，專利局解釋這個「XYZ」因為有了"Z"，則「XYZ」仍視為先前技術。因此，所謂新穎性優惠期仍是充滿隱憂，若有他人改變了發明人所揭露的發明，再次揭示出來，就成為先前技術了。

參考資料：http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2017/06/10/patentability-novelty-requirement-102/id=84321/

-----------------------------------------------------
歐洲專利實務筆記：

1.     「歐洲單一性」有兩個類型：

(1)經檢索得到最接近先前技術判斷單一性（這點導致同一組獨立範圍也會遇到單一性問題，這一點不見得容易預防）；以及

(2)技術類別（classification）不同產生多個獨立範圍之間不符單一性（這點可以盡力預防）。
（因此我建議，歐洲專利申請案送件前考慮修改專利範圍，”盡量”避免單一性問題，但要理解不是兩項以上獨立項就會有單一性問題，EPC規定有幾點例外情況，實務上還算寬容，或是審查委員（檢索階段）同意讓申請人修改專利範圍而符合單一性）

2.     歐洲解釋專利範圍相對嚴格，專利範圍本身應該要足夠明確而能直接讓人解讀到發明為何，解釋的均等範圍不能過廣，或是需要想像力。

（因為歐洲專利趨向週邊限定，所以專利範圍可能需要比美國、台灣更為明確，必要條件應該都要寫入專利範圍中，解釋專利範圍時不容易均等擴大，至少審查時是這樣）

3.     「非檢索過的專利特徵」不會被審查，修正限制相對嚴格。

（因為歐洲先檢索，之後才實審，因此到實審後，「未被檢索的專利特徵」可能不允許加入專利範圍，因此，歐洲專利修正相對限制很多。如此，申請時的專利範圍的依附關係要更緊密，重要技術元件應該不要”藏”在說明書中，以後可能沒有機會拿到專利範圍中。但我覺得，歐洲修正可以對特定元件修正/加入描述，還不至於會被認定為非檢索特徵）

4.     歐洲對「商業方法」、「軟體專利」要求「技術性」，因為過於抽象的技術不會被接受，這也是因為欠缺結構特徵或方法特徵。

（我覺得，相對於美案，大家對歐洲「方法案/軟體案/商業方法」的實務更不熟悉，因此EPC案盡量要求技術性，避免抽象的描述。這點，我遇過審查委員主觀地認定沒有技術性，卻還是提出先前技術比較技術，看來有些矛盾，但是可知歐洲所謂「技術性」是相對性的，「未被先前技術揭露的技術」才有「技術性」！）

Ron