In re Comiskey (App. No.09/461,742)
此案Claim 1是"method for mandatory arbitration resolution regarding one or more unilateral documents", 主要是提出一種法律文件的仲裁方法, 比如遺囑, 契約等Claim 1: A method for mandatory arbitration resolution regarding one or more unilateral documents comprising the steps of:
enrolling a person and one or more unilateral documents associated with the person in a mandatory arbitration system at a time prior to or as of the time of creation of or execution of the one or more unilateral documents;
incorporating arbitration language, that is specific to the enrolled person, in the previously enrolled unilateral document wherein the arbitration anguage provides that any contested issue related to the unilateral document must be presented to the mandatory arbitration system, in which the person and the one or more unilateral documents are enrolled, for binding arbitration wherein the contested issue comprises one or more of a challenge to the documents, interpretation of the documents, interpretation or application of terms of the documents and execution of the documents or terms of the documents;
requiring a complainant to submit a request for arbitration resolution to the mandatory arbitration system wherein the request is directed to the contested issue related to the unilateral document containing the arbitration language;
conducting arbitration resolution for the contested issue related to the unilateral document in response to the request for arbitration resolution;
providing support to the arbitration resolution; and
determining an award or a decision for the contested issue related to the unilateral document in accordance with the incorporated arbitration language, wherein the award or the decision is final and binding with respect to the complainant.
上述的仲裁方法, 應用在Claim 17, 形成一個與硬體有連結的系統範圍:
Claim 17:
A system for mandatory arbitration resolution regarding one or more unilateral documents comprising:
a registration module for enrolling a person who is executing and one or more unilateral documents associated with the person in a mandatory rbitration system at a time prior to or as of the time of creation of or xecution of the one or more unilateral documents;
an arbitration module for incorporating arbitration language, that is specific to the enrolled person, in the previously enrolled unilateral document wherein the arbitration language provides that any contested issue related to the unilateral document must be presented to the mandatory arbitration
system, in which the person and the one or more unilateral documents are enrolled, for binding arbitration wherein the contested issue comprises one or more of a challenge to the documents, interpretation of the documents, interpretation or application of terms of the documents and execution of the documents or terms of the documents; and for providing this arbitration language to the enrolled person;
an arbitration resolution module for requiring a complainant to submit a request for arbitration resolution to the mandatory arbitration system wherein the request is directed to the contested issue related to the unilateral document containing the arbitration language; and
a means for selecting an arbitrator from an arbitrator database to conduct an arbitration resolution for the contested issue related to the unilateral document in response to the request for arbitration resolution, for providing support to the arbitrator, and where the arbitrator determines an award or a decision for the contested issue related to the unilateral document in accordance with the incorporated arbitration language, wherein the award or the decision is final and binding with respect to the
complainant.
2007年，CAFC認為所謂仲裁的技術並不是專利法第101條的專利標的，由於是認定完全是人類心智活動的方法並非是可專利的標的；但相同的方法包括某種形式的實體裝置則可為可專利的標的。
CAFC對此案的結論是, Claim 1與另一項Claim 32(包括附屬項)為不可專利的標的, 但是Claim 17與Claim 46則發回USPTO, 要求USPTO判斷是否符合101的標的, 且提議Comiskey可修改範圍
小結：如果發明為根據人類心智方法的特定商業方法，不予專利，但是與硬體連結的範圍則可能是可專利的
In re Bilski
可參考http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/03/in-re-bernard-l-bilski-and-rand-warsaw.html
於2008年10月30日，CAFC做出In re Bilski最新判例，針對商業方法與電腦軟體，這判例做出了重要的判決，簡單來說，有兩個判定可專利性（USC 101）的判斷標準：- it is tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or
連結特定機器或裝置 - it transforms a particular article into a different state or thing."
轉換特定物品到不同的狀態
此判例顯示「可能」連結於電腦的商業方法是可專利的，但是否電腦就是所謂的「特定機器」？
小結：2000s年代的判例大概會慢慢否決掉單純的商業活動，但是否會否決用電腦實施的發明，由於現在幾乎所有的活動都跟電腦有關，或許所謂particular machine並非指電腦本身，而是用於特定用電腦實現的機器！
Ron
參考資料：bitlaw.com
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/history-of-software-patents-i.html
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/history-of-software-patents-ii.html
http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/04/history-of-software-patents-iii.html
沒有留言:
張貼留言