MPEP界定專利可保護的課題（patent subject matter eligibility），電腦可讀取媒體（computer-readable media）成為電腦程式與硬體連結專利性判斷的重要關鍵，可參閱另一篇最近的案例描述，http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/08/blog-post_6.html，可見法院與專利局逐漸有一致的看法。
電腦程式所實現的發明，其發明功能（function of the invention）成為可專利與否的關鍵，在MPEP 2106中提到： "Of importance is the significance of the data and their manipulation in the real world, i.e., what the computer is doing."：
為了取得一個專利，首先自然先是揭露足以讓人瞭解發明的實施方式（說明書），至少要揭露可以與先前技術區隔的相對重要的特徵，接著專利局將進行評價（審查），根據MPEP 2106所規範的評價要件（可專利性的條件）：
(A) 判斷出該發明的功能（function）；
(B) 判斷出完成至少一個實際應用的特徵（feature）。
MPEP 2106.01訂出電腦相關非法定專利標的：表示描述資訊本身（descriptive material per se）的資料結構（data structure），以及表示電腦程序本身（computer listings per se）的電腦程式（computer program）。
其中提到，何謂「descriptive material per se」 ，就是沒有紀錄在電腦可讀取媒體（computer-readable media）的資料結構，此類資料結構並未定義出與發明概念的結構上或功能性的關聯，因此並非法定可專利的客體。如此可知，電腦可讀取媒體則是建立此關聯的重要關鍵！
而電腦程序本身則因為並非實體的物體，既非電腦元件也非流程，電腦程序與其他電腦元件也因為沒有結構與功能的關聯，因此並非可專利的客體。如此可知，電腦可讀取媒體也為建立此結構或功能關聯的重要特徵。
電腦程式實現的發明並非電腦程式本身：
電腦程式通常會引述在權利範圍的一部分，因此專利審查委員在審理這類權利範圍時，應判斷這些電腦程式是否成為其他可專利的製造或機械的一部分，如此，這樣的權利範圍並無關電腦程式本身，因此為可專利的客體。
比如，用於電腦化的流程（computerized process）的電腦程式的可專利與否將視此流程的專利性，非涉及電腦程式本身。專利局將認為此為process claim，非computer program per se。
2106 Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
（可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/08/mpep-2106-ii-c.html）
B. Review the Detailed Disclosure and Specific Embodiments of the Invention To Understand What the Applicant Has Invented
The written description will provide the
clearest explanation of the applicant's invention, by exemplifying the
invention, explaining how it relates to the prior art and explaining the
relative significance of various features of the invention.
Accordingly, USPTO personnel should continue their evaluation by
(A) determining the function of the invention,
that is, what the invention does when used as disclosed (e.g., the
functionality of the programmed computer) (Arrhythmia, 958 F.2d
at 1057, 22 *USPQ2d at 1036, "It is of course true that a modern
digital computer manipulates data, usually in binary form, by
performing mathematical operations, such as addition, subtraction,
multiplication, division, or bit shifting, on the data. But this is only
how the computer does what it does. Of importance is the significance
of the data and their manipulation in the real world, i.e., what the
computer is doing."); and
(B) determining the features necessary to accomplish at least one asserted practical application.
Patent applicants can assist the USPTO by preparing applications that clearly set forth these aspects of an invention.
2106.01 Computer-Related Nonstatutory Subject Matter
I. FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL: "DATA STRUCTURES" REPRESENTING DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL PER SE OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS REPRESENTING COMPUTER LISTINGS PER SE
Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se
held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any
structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure
and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data
structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed
computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines
structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure
and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data
structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory.
Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se,
i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs, are not physical
"things." They are neither computer components nor statutory processes,
as they are not "acts" being performed. Such claimed computer programs
do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between
the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer which
permit the computer program's functionality to be realized. In contrast,
a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a computer program is a
computer element which defines structural and functional
interrelationships between the computer program and the rest of the
computer which permit the computer program's functionality to be
realized, and is thus statutory. See Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1583-84, 32 USPQ2d at 1035. Accordingly, it is important to distinguish claims
that define descriptive material per se from claims that define statutory inventions.
Computer programs are often recited as
part of a claim. USPTO personnel should determine whether the computer
program is being claimed as part of an otherwise statutory manufacture
or machine. In such a case, the claim remains statutory irrespective of
the fact that a computer program is included in the claim. The same
result occurs when a computer program is used in a computerized process
where the computer executes the instructions set forth in the computer
program. Only when the claimed invention taken as a whole is directed to
a mere program listing, i.e., to only its description or expression, is
it descriptive material per se and hence nonstatutory.
Since a computer program is merely a set
of instructions capable of being executed by a computer, the computer
program itself is not a process and USPTO personnel should treat a claim
for a computer program, without the computer-readable medium needed to
realize the computer program's functionality, as nonstatutory functional
descriptive material. When a computer program is claimed in a process
where the computer is executing the computer program's instructions,
USPTO personnel should treat the claim as a process claim. ** When a
computer program is recited in conjunction with a physical structure,
such as a computer memory, USPTO personnel should treat the claim as a
product claim.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言