"computer-readable medium"是否為可專利的標的？

軟體案或是特定領域想要保護的儲存載體「為可核准的標的」！

Patently-O部落格文章提出最近幾個專利上訴與衝突委員會（BPAI）的判決，其中提到法定可專利與非法定可專利的標的

其中之一探討到我們常在軟體或是特定技術權利範圍中常用的「computer-readable medium」的方式是否可以符合美國專利法101的規定的議題（可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.com/2008/07/101.html）
在文章中引述單方訴願（updated, march.1.2012）案：Ex Parte Hu, App. No. 2010-000151 (BPAI 2012)的判決。在專利審查階段，此案之審查委員根據美國專利法第101條的規定，核駁專利範圍，申請人於是提出訴願（appeal）程序，BPAI判決認為其中描述的「computer-readable storage medium」電腦可讀取儲存媒體係能夠指出（directed to）一個具體的儲存媒體，可以被電腦所讀取，因此落於專利法101的規範的法定可專利的類別中，為可專利的標的

在此爭議案的專利審查過程，審查委員核駁理由包括：
1. Claims 26-45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2. Claims 1-51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Mohan.
雖然申請人提出，其中爭議的權利範圍描述有「computer-readable storage medium」字眼，但是，並未在說明書中明確排除掉可以被電腦也可讀取的載波與傳輸媒介，因此判斷該專利範圍無明確的硬體連結，不符101法定可專利標的的規定

在BAPI的決定文中指出，他們認為『不同意審查委員見解，認為電腦可讀取儲存媒體為具體可被電腦讀取的東西，此類媒體包括具體儲存資料的媒體，也包括暫存傳輸訊號與資訊的無實體的媒體（intangible media），而此爭議專利範圍中，computer readable storage medium明確限制在資料儲存在具體的媒體，認為符合101規定的法定可專利範圍，並非如審查委員所述未排除一些非具體的載波或是傳輸媒介
[原文]
We do not agree with the Examiner. We find that the computer readable storage medium is directed to a tangible storage medium, which can be read by a computer. While a computer-readable medium is broad enough to encompass both tangible media that store data and intangible media that carry a transitory, and propagating signal containing information, a computer readable storage medium is distinguished therefrom as it is confined to tangible media for storing data. Therefore, because the cited claims are limited to a tangible medium within one of the four statutory classes of 35 U.S.C. § 101, they are directed to statutory subject matter. Therefore, appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in concluding that claims 26-45 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.

（其中判斷參考一個2007年聯邦巡迴法院的判例：In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346：如果權利範圍並未落於101規範的四個可專利類別中，即便專利標的為新與有用的，但仍不在101規範中
"If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful."）

此判決中的專利申請號：10/982,135（公開號：2006/0101033），其揭示一種高效能日誌為基礎的處理技術（high-performance log-based processing），主要範圍在於從日誌檔（log）中讀取工作的項目、排序、應用排序結果、傳輸工作項目到執行其他叢集中資料庫服務的處理程序中，其中關鍵在其中利用協調的技術判斷目前工作程序狀態，並計算出可用的節點。

這顯然是個處理程序的演算技術，其專利範圍Claim 1：
1. A method for processing sequences of work items from one or more logs, wherein each work item corresponds to a particular data object, the method comprising the computer-implemented steps of:
by each of a plurality of Worker processes,
reading, from at least one log, a subset of the work items;
sequentially ordering work items, for corresponding data objects, from one or more of the subsets of work items, wherein at least one of the one or more subsets was read by another process; and
applying a sequentially ordered set of work items to a corresponding data object.

Claim 26使用了引用式的獨立項：
26. A computer-readable medium carrying one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform the method recited in claim 1.

參考案例(updated on June 8, 2016)：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/06/in-re-nuijten-fed-cir-2007.html
可專利標的討論 - 暫態訊息不可專利案例 - In re Nuijten (Fed. Cir. 2007)

Ron
資料參考：Patently-O, USPTO BPAI App. No. 2010-000151