後見之明（hindsight）的討論

後見之明（hindsight）的討論

後見之明（hindsight），或是事後諸葛，都是在專利審查中審查委員應該努力排除的個人因素，禁止倚賴後見之明作出判斷（prohibited reliance on hindsight），最好的方式就是用在專利申請前的引證資料對專利進行核駁；如果審查委員主觀地核駁專利申請案，卻又沒有提出任何引證案，專利申請人的答辯方式之一也可以反駁這個意見為後見之明。

根據Patently-O對此討論時，提到KSR v. Teleflex判例衍生出的「obvious to try」的進步性判斷：發明是否「產生超出預期的結果」、「實踐可預期的變化」、「已知問題明顯有已知的解決方案」等，這些卻可能提供審查委員使用「後見之明」或是判斷發明人使用「常識」的正當性！
可參考：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/09/ksr-uspto.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/12/obvious-to-try.html

在此案例中（Mintz v. Dietz & Watson, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2012)）：
專利US5,413,148揭露一種由Mintz等人發明的裝肉的盒子，讓肉在網繩之間凸出，不同於以往用編織箱子（knitted）的較複雜裝填方式。

獨立項如下，真是難懂的英文，但本篇內容主要議題並非在權利範圍與侵權官司。
所揭露裝肉的盒子為用長管子圍繞所製作的網狀盒子，網子由橫豎不同方向的管狀物形成，元件主要有網狀彈性體，編織為具有多股形成的不同容置空間，並相互鎖固，使得肉品可以在特定壓力下置入，表面形成棋盤狀的凸出...
1. An elongated tubular casing structure for encasing meat products, said elongated structure having a longitudinal direction and a transverse lateral direction, said casing structure comprising:

a stockinette member comprising a closely knit tubular member formed of closely knit threads and having a first stretch capacity;

a knitted netting arrangement having a second stretch capacity and comprising a first plurality of spaced strands extending in said longitudinal direction and a second plurality of spaced strands extending in said lateral direction;

the longitudinal and lateral strands of said netting arrangement each intersecting in locking engagement with one another to form a grid-like pattern comprising a plurality of four-sided shapes;

said strands of said netting arrangement being knit into the threads of said stockinette member, whereby said netting arrangement and said stockinette member are integrally formed so that said casing structure comprises an integrally formed structure;

said first stretch capacity being greater than said second stretch capacity;

whereby, when a meat product is stuffed into said casing structure under pressure, said meat product forms a bulge within each of said four-sided shapes to thereby define a checker-board pattern on the surface thereof, said stockinette member forming a shield to prevent the adherence of adjacent meat product bulges over said strands of said netting arrangement.

被告侵權者為一個包裝公司（Package Concepts & Materials, Inc.），也是此專利發明人Mintz過去的經銷商，在被告之後，提出一個宣告式判決（declaratory judgment action）的訴訟，也就是希望法官可以根據過去的判例（如KSR）作出一個統一的判斷，在本案中希望如地方法院的判斷，要求聯邦巡迴法院（CAFC）作出該專利無效的決定，但此次，CAFC並未如被告的願。

此案例在討論後見之明時，並未涉及上述KSR判例，但是整個環節仍是圍繞在此類議題上。
為了避免後見之明的偏見，要求有：

清楚表示該專利為「常識、常用手段（common sense）」：
在此案例中，地方法院以常識來認定專利為「obvious to try」的常用手段，但是CAFC卻不同意地方法院的判斷，認為有過份使用common sense的可能，以下摘錄CAFC的意見：
The district court made a clear error, however, in its unsubstantiated reliance on “a common sense view” or “common sense approach” to hold that it would have been “obvious to try” a locking engagement. The mere recitation of the words “common sense” without any support adds nothing to the obviousness equation. Within the statutory test to determine if a claimed invention has advanced its technical art field enough to warrant an exclusive right, “common sense” is a shorthand label for knowledge so basic that it certainly lies within the skill set of an ordinary artisan. With little more than an invocation of the words “common sense” (without any record support showing that this knowledge would reside in the ordinarily skilled artisan), the district court over-reached in its determination of obviousness.

避免用專利本身定義出欲解決的問題：在此案例中，CAFC也認為地方法院錯誤地使用專利所載發明來定義出發明要解決的問題，這也容易被如KSR判例中認為專利為「已知問題明顯有已知的解決方案」。以下摘錄為CAFC的意見：
This statement of the problem represents a form of prohibited reliance on hindsight. The district court has used the invention to define the problem that the invention solves. Often the inventive contribution lies in defining the problem in a new revelatory way. In other words, when someone is presented with the identical problem and told to make the patented invention, it often becomes virtually certain that the artisan will succeed in making the invention.

強調分析顯而易見的客觀證據（避免主觀認定）：在此案例中提到避免後見之明的方式即為以非顯而易見的客觀證據判斷進步性，CAFC認為地方法院並未作到提出客觀證據來證明該專利為顯而易見。以下摘錄CAFC的意見：
We hold that the district court erred by failing to consider Trans-ocean’s objective evidence of nonobviousness. … To be clear, a district court must always consider any objective evidence of nonobviousness presented in a case.

但侵權官司中，CAFC倒是認同地方法院的觀點，被告並未侵害148專利，原因是並未有上圖中的特徵：在鎖固的地方交錯（intersecting in locking engagement）
The district court correctly found the accused PCM products do not infringe the ’148 patent. The PCM products do not satisfy the “intersecting in locking engagement” claim limitation. The longitudinal strands in the PCM products are always separated by at least one row of regular loops.

Ron
資料參考：Patently-O
檔案：http://www.patentlyo.com/files/10-1341.pdf