歐洲檢索報告筆記

筆記

當提出歐洲專利申請案後，將於一段時間後先收到一份歐洲檢索報告，其中可能包括一份檢索報告，以及各前案關聯本案的權利範圍項次，包括X, Y, P等文件（可參閱：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/05/epo.html）；另隨同檢索報告的也可能會有根據各權利範圍之間是否具有共同的特殊技術特徵（special technical feature, STF）作出各項之間不具單一性，因此檢索報告僅針對其中第一組被認為具有共同STF的權利範圍；隨同檢索報告，審查委員也會提出一些初步意見（preliminary opinion）。

相關事項：

1. 檢索報告為歐洲專利檢索部門作出
   EPC Article 17 Search Divisions
   The Search Divisions shall be responsible for drawing up European search reports.
2. 檢索範圍為權利範圍與關聯的圖式
   EPC Article 92 Drawing up of the European search report
   The European Patent Office shall, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, draw up and publish a European search report in respect of the European patent application on the basis of the claims, with due regard to the description and any drawings.
3. EPO為WIPO指定國的檢索報告，其國際檢索報告可取代歐洲檢索報告
   EPC Article 153 The European Patent Office as designated Office or elected Office
   (6) The international search report drawn up in respect of a Euro-PCT application or the declaration replacing it, and their international publication, shall take the place of the European search report and the mention of its publication in the European Patent Bulletin.
4. 當EPO為WIPO的指定國，歐洲專利局可以提出補充歐洲檢索報告，檢索報告的費用可以減免
   EPC Article 153 The European Patent Office as designated Office or elected Office
   (7) A supplementary European search report shall be drawn up in respect of any Euro-PCT application under paragraph 5. The Administrative Council may decide that the supplementary search report is to be dispensed with or that the search fee is to be reduced.
5. 應於歐洲專利公告檢索報告後六個月內繳交國家指定費
   EPC Rule 17 Filing of a new European patent application by the entitled person
   (3) The designation fee shall be paid within six months of the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report drawn up in respect of the new application. Rule 39, paragraphs 2 and 3, shall apply.
6. 檢索報告應說明引證案的公開日與申請案的優先權、申請日等的關係
   EPC Rule 61 Content of the European search report
   (3) The European search report shall distinguish between cited documents published
   before the date of priority claimed, between such date of priority and the date of filing, and on or after the date of filing.
7.  檢索報告應伴隨判斷是否符合歐洲專利法的意見
   EPC Rule 62 Extended European search report
   (1) The European search report shall be accompanied by an opinion on whether the
   application and the invention to which it relates seem to meet the requirements of this Convention, unless a communication under Rule 71, paragraph 1 or 3, can be issued.
8. 如果因為一些瑕疵無法作出有意義的檢索，可以先提出部份檢索報告
   EPC Rule 63 Incomplete search
   (2) ...European patent application fails to such an extent to comply with this Convention that it is impossible to carry out a meaningful search regarding the state of the art on the basis of all or some of the subject-matter claimed or, as far as is practicable, draw up a partial search report. The reasoned declaration or the partial search report shall be considered, for the purposes of subsequent proceedings, as the European search report.
9. 當提出前述部份檢索報告後，審查單位應要求申請人限制權項，除非無法作出有意義檢索的判斷有誤
   EPC Rule 63 Incomplete search
   (3) When a partial search report has been drawn up, the Examining Division shall invite the applicant to restrict the claims to the subject matter searched unless it finds that the objection under paragraph 1 was not justified.
10. 如果歐洲專利申請案不符單一性要求，應提出部份檢索報告，申請人僅能額外付費對其他不符單一性的權項作出檢索報告
    EPC Rule 64 European search report where the invention lacks unity
    (1) If the European Patent Office considers that the European patent application does not comply with the requirement of unity of invention, it shall draw up a partial search report on those parts of the application which relate to the invention, or the group of inventions within the meaning of Article 82, first mentioned in the claims. It shall inform the applicant that, for the European search report to cover the other inventions, a further search fee must be paid, in respect of each invention involved, within a period of two months. The European search report shall be drawn up for the parts of the application relating to inventions in respect of which search fees have been paid.
11. 檢索報告可能與申請案一起公開，也可分開公開
    Rule 68 Form of the publication of European patent applications and European search reports
    (1) ... the European search report, where it is available before the termination of the technical preparations for publication. If the search report or the abstract is not published at the same time as the application, it shall be published separately.
12. 應於歐洲專利公告檢索報告後六個月內請求實際審查
    EPC Rule 70 Request for examination
    (1) The applicant may request examination of the European patent application up to six months after the date on which the European Patent Bulletin mentions the publication of the European search report. The request may not be withdrawn.
13. 如果在檢索報告之前已經提出實審請求，歐洲專利局可以限期要求申請人表明是否要繼續後續審查，並可給予對該檢索報告作出意見與修正說明書、權利範圍與圖式的機會
    EPC Rule 70 Request for examination
    (2) If the request for examination has been filed before the European search report has been transmitted to the applicant, the European Patent Office shall invite the applicant to indicate, within a period to be specified, whether he wishes to proceed further with the application, and shall give him the opportunity to comment
    on the search report and to amend, where appropriate, the description, claims and
    drawings.
14. 隨同歐洲檢索報告，歐洲專利局提供申請人作出對檢索報告（包括補充檢索報告，見同項第(2)款）的意見的機會，也可以校正官方所作出的意見瑕疵，並可限期修正說明書、權利範圍與圖式
    EPC Rule 70a Response to the extended European search report
    (1) In the opinion accompanying the European search report the European Patent Office shall give the applicant the opportunity to comment on the extended European search report and, where appropriate, invite him to correct any deficiencies noted in the opinion accompanying the European search report and to amend the description, claims and drawings within the period referred to in Rule 70, paragraph 1.
15. 修正時機：
    EPC Rule 137 Amendment of the European patent application
    (1) Before receiving the European search report, the applicant may not amend the
    description, claims or drawings of a European patent application unless otherwise provided.
    在接到歐洲檢索報告前，不能修正說明書、權利範圍或圖式
    (2) Together with any comments, corrections or amendments made in response to communications by the European Patent Office under Rule 70a, paragraph 1 or 2, or Rule 161, paragraph 1, the applicant may amend the description, claims and drawings of his own volition.
    回覆官方意見時（communication, OA），可以同時修正說明書、權利範圍與圖式
    (3) No further amendment may be made without the consent of the Examining Division.
    如果沒有審查單位的同意，不得修正
    (4) When filing any amendments referred to in paragraphs 1 to 3, the applicant shall identify them and indicate the basis for them in the application as filed. If the Examining Division notes a failure to meet either requirement, it may request the correction of this deficiency within a period of one month.
    當提出修正時，申請人應指明修正是基於原申請時說明書內容，如果違反規定，可於一個月內提出修正
    (5) Amended claims may not relate to unsearched subject-matter which does not combine with the originally claimed invention or group of inventions to form a single general inventive concept. Nor may they relate to subject-matter not searched in accordance with Rule 62a or Rule 63.
    修正後的權利範圍不能關聯原申請專利範圍內未檢索的部份，或是非一個發明概念下的範圍
16. 單一性相關：
    EPC Rule 164 Consideration of unity by the European Patent Office
    (1) Where the European Patent Office considers that the application documents which are to serve as the basis for the supplementary European search do not meet the requirements for unity of invention, a supplementary European search report shall be drawn up on those parts of the application which relate to the invention, or the group of inventions within the meaning of Article 82, first mentioned in the claims.
    當歐洲專利局判斷權利範圍不符單一性要求，僅對第一組範圍作出檢索（包括補充檢索）
    (2) Where the examining division finds that the application documents on which the European grant procedure is to be based do not meet the requirements of unity of invention, or protection is sought for an invention not covered by the international search report or, as the case may be, by the supplementary international search report or supplementary European search report, it shall invite the applicant to limit the application to one invention covered by the international search report, the supplementary international search report or the supplementary European search report.
    當審查單位發現申請案並未符合單一性要求，或是發現國際檢索、補充檢索報告未涵蓋的發明，審查單位應要求申請人將申請案限制在被上述各檢索報告所包括的一個發明內

順便補上歐洲檢索費用（官方費用）：

Ron

美國專利期限計算器

曾經利用Excel的日期計算功能幫客戶計算專利期限，現在USPTO也提供一個專利期限的計算器。

目前各國專利期限（發明）的基本期限是申請日起算20年，比如申請日在2/8/2006，標準的過期日（expiration date）就是2/8/2026。
但是，
美國專利期限會因為審查的延誤而"還給"專利權人（一旦獲准專利）被延誤的日子（分為A delay, B delay, C delay），因此在專利獲准之後，順便會發出專利期限調整（PTA）的通知，這在PAIR系統中很容易找到！
相關部落格內容：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/05/patent-term-adjustment-pta.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/01/pta.html

這個簡單取代手算的計算器(Excel)載點：http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/patent_term_calculator.jsp


來試試看，列舉一例：
專利號：US7,957,468
申請號：11/349,132
申請日：2/8/2006
領證日：6/7/2011

先從PAIR找到PTA，此例有1521天：

 

填入PTA，沒有被調整的天數，就填"0"，此例的PTA有1521天：

 

這件專利估計的過期日在2030年4月9日（那天開始無效）：

 

表格中順便提醒年費繳納日：

Ron
資訊來源：http://www.uspto.gov/news/pr/2013/13-06.jsp

蘋果公司的商標與設計

我覺得Apple是個有趣而且可以討論的公司，原因是它提供了不少「設計」的想法，除了蘋果一直以來突出設計的電子產品本身（不同於長期Wintel電腦架構下呆板、灰暗的所謂"電腦"的形象），也包括了電子產品的包裝（不少設計專利）、賣場（有商標、設計專利），甚至在軟體介面、畫面上的圖像（icon，有商標、設計）、介面動畫，也對單一產品以多種保護範圍進行專利佈局（如：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/07/apple.html），連裝置內電路板都有設計專利（如：USD673,515），不論何種保護方式，都提供了很多值得學習的原創精神（雖然曾經也有抄襲的困擾，如：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/11/apple2.html）。

一般來說，設計與商標的差異各國接近，設計專利有一定約10年20年不等的年限，而商標在實際實施的需要下可以永久保留。設計專利可以排除任何人在各種物品上採用了如設計專利有一定程度近似或造成混淆的設計，主要是針對工業設計，申請時設計應保有新穎性、進步性（獨創，與前案可區隔）；而商標則為應用在物品、服務上而具有識別效果的標誌（包括影像、聲音、氣味），主張範圍依照申請商標的類別而定，並不要求新穎性，而是先使用的權利。

中國外觀設計的定義：對產品或物品的形狀、圖案、色彩等元素結合後作出的富有美感並適於工業應用的設計。
中國商標法所指的註冊商標是具有顯著特徵而便於識別。

中華民國（台灣）設計專利的定義：設計，指對物品之全部或部分之形狀、花紋、色彩或其結合，透過視覺訴求之創作（專利法第121條）。
中華民國商標法對商標的定義：商標，指任何具有識別性之標識，得以文字、圖形、記號、顏色、立體形狀、動態、全像圖、聲音等，或其聯合式所組成（商標法第18條）。

美國設計專利：Whoever invents any new, original, and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. (35 U.S.C. 171)
美國商標：(15 U.S.C. 1051)


蘋果不少是同時申請了商標與設計專利，比如Siri的圖式有設計專利也有商標：

如果是建築物，有設計專利，但裡面蘋果商店（apple store）的設計則更有註冊商標：

Ron
資料參考：Cult of Mac, uspto, bitlaw

美國設計專利再領證（包括修正）

筆記

設計專利的修正通常時機在於被核駁，包括新穎性、進步性與圖面、說明書描述的瑕疵；也可能在獲准之後提出再領證（re-issue）時提出修正；另面對重複專利的前後設計案，也需要修正。

MPEP 1509 規範設計專利的再領證審查，整理以下幾個要點：

1. 再領證不能延長專利期限
2. 修正規定在沒有新事物（new matter） 增加的前提下，可以刪除、修正與新增圖式
3. 圖式的變更應提出解釋
4. 註解修正頁
5. 刪除圖式應標示"canceled"
6. 修正圖式應標示"amended"
7. 新增圖式應標示"new"
8. 如果修正包括將實線轉為不主張範圍的虛線，應提出虛線的目的

MPEP 1509 Reissue of a Design Patent

See MPEP Chapter 1400 for practice and procedure in reissue applications. See also MPEP § 1457 regarding design reissue applications.

For design reissue application fee, see 37 CFR 1.16(*>e<). For fee for issuing a reissue design patent, see 37 CFR 1.18(b).

The term of a design patent may not be extended by reissue. Ex parte Lawrence, 70 USPQ 326 (Comm'r Pat. 1946). If a reissue application is filed for the purpose of correcting the drawing of a design patent, either by canceling views, amending views or adding new views, the provisions of 37 CFR 1.173(b)(3) must be followed. All changes to the patent drawing shall be explained, in detail, beginning on a separate sheet accompanying the papers including the amendment to the drawing. A marked-up copy of any amended drawing figure, including annotations indicating the changes made, should be submitted. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as "Annotated Marked-up Drawings" and it must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawing.

A reissue application must be filed with a copy of all drawing views of the design patent regardless of whether certain views are being cancelled or amended in the reissue application. Inasmuch as the drawing is the primary means for showing the design being claimed, it is important for purposes of comparison that the reissue of the design patent shows a changed drawing view in both its canceled and amended versions and/or show a previously printed drawing view that has been canceled but not replaced. In addition to drawing views that are unchanged from the original design patent, the drawing in the reissue application may include the following views, all of which will be printed as part of the design reissue patent:

(1) CANCELED drawing view. Such a drawing view must be surrounded by brackets and must be labeled as "Canceled." For example, FIG. 3 (Canceled). If a drawing view is canceled but not replaced the corresponding figure description in the reissue specification must also be cancelled. However, if a drawing view is cancelled and replaced by an amended drawing view the corresponding figure description in the reissue specification may or may not need to be amended.

(2) AMENDED drawing view. Such a drawing view must be labeled as "Amended." For example, FIG. 3 (Amended). When an amended drawing view is present, there may or may not be a corresponding canceled drawing view. If there is such a corresponding canceled drawing view, the amended and canceled drawing views should have the same figure number. The specification of the reissue application need not indicate that there is both a canceled version and an amended version of the drawing view.

(3) NEW drawing view. Such a drawing view must be labeled as "New" For example, FIG. 5 (New). The new drawing view should have a new figure number, that is, a figure number that did not appear in the original design patent. The specification of the reissue application must include a figure description of the new drawing view.

If a drawing view includes both a cancelled and amended version, and the change in the amended version is for the purpose of converting certain solid lines to broken lines, the reissue specification must include a statement indicating the purpose of the broken lines.

其中涉及的新事物（new matter）可參考MPEP 1504.04所規範考慮設計專利揭露義務（112），所謂新事物就是在修正過程中加入了原始申請案並未揭露的部份，無前述基礎，如果將會被依據112條規定遭遇核駁，而針對設計專利的揭露內容來看，係指申請時所繪製的所有線條，因此後續修正可以依據這些線條放寬或是限縮權利範圍。

設計專利中放寬權利範圍的修正就是將實線轉為虛線；限縮範圍就是將虛線轉為實線！
若修正包括移除平面圖而露出重疊的部份，若無產生新事物的爭議，也可能被允許。

New Matter

New matter is subject matter which has no antecedent basis in the original specification, drawings or claim ( MPEP § 608.04). An amendment to the claim must have antecedent basis in the original disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132; 37 CFR 1.121(f). Prior to final action, all amendments will be entered in the application and will be considered by the examiner. Ex parte Hanback, 231 USPQ 739 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986). An amendment to the claim which has no antecedent basis in the specification and/or drawings as originally filed introduces new matter because that subject matter is not described in the application as originally filed. The claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. An amendment to the disclosure not affecting the claim (such as environment in the title or in broken lines in the drawings), which has no antecedent basis in the application as originally filed, must be objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 as lacking support in the application as originally filed and a requirement must be made to cancel the new matter.

The scope of a design claim is defined by what is shown in full lines in the application drawings. In re Mann, 861 F.2d 1581, 8 USPQ2d 2030 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The claim may be amended by broadening or narrowing its scope within the bounds of the disclosure as originally filed.

A change in the configuration of the claimed design is considered a departure from the original disclosure and introduces prohibited new matter ( 37 CFR 1.121(f)). See In re Salmon, 705 F.2d 1579, 217 USPQ 981 (Fed. Cir. 1983). This includes the removal of three-dimensional surface treatment that is an integral part of the configuration of the claimed design, for example, beading, grooves, and ribs. The underlying configuration revealed by such an amendment would not be apparent in the application as filed and, therefore, it could not be established that applicant was in possession of this amended configuration at the time the application was filed. However, an amendment that changes the scope of a design by either reducing certain portions of the drawing to broken lines or converting broken line structure to solid lines is not a change in configuration as defined by the court in Salmon. The reason for this is because applicant was in possession of everything disclosed in the drawing at the time the application was filed and the mere reduction of certain portions to broken lines or conversion of broken line structure to solid lines is not a departure from the original disclosure. Examiners are cautioned that if broken line structure is converted to solid lines by way of amendment, the shape and configuration of that structure must have been fully disclosed and enabling at the time the application was filed. An amendment which alters the appearance of the claimed design by removing two-dimensional, superimposed surface treatment may be permitted if it is clear from the application that applicant had possession of the underlying configuration of the design without the surface treatment at the time of filing of the application. See In re Daniels, 144 F.3d 1452, 1456-57, 46 USPQ2d 1788, 1790 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

Amendments to the title must have antecedent basis in the original application to be permissible. If an amendment to the title directed to the article in which the design is embodied has no antecedent basis in the original application, the claim will be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement thereof. Ex parte Strijland, 26 USPQ2d 1259 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992). If an amendment to the title directed to the environment in which the design is used has no antecedent basis in the original application, it will be objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132 as introducing new matter into the disclosure. See MPEP § 1503.01, subsection I.

Examples of permissible amendments filed with the original application include: (A) a preliminary amendment filed simultaneously with the application papers, that is specifically identified in the original oath/declaration as required by 37 CFR 1.63 and MPEP § 608.04(b); and (B) the inclusion of a disclaimer in the original specification or on the drawings/photographs as filed. See 37 CFR 1.152 and MPEP § 1503.01 and § 1503.02.

An example of a permissible amendment submitted after the filing of the application would be an amendment that does not involve a departure from the configuration of the original disclosure ( 37 CFR 1.121(f)).

An example of an impermissible amendment which introduces new matter would be an amendment to the claim without antecedent basis in the original disclosure which would change the configuration or surface appearance of the original design by the addition of previously undisclosed subject matter. In re Berkman, 642 F.2d 427, 209 USPQ 45 (CCPA 1981).

When an amendment affecting the claim is submitted that introduces new matter into the drawing, specification or title and a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is made, the examiner should specifically identify in the Office action the subject matter which is not considered to be supported by the original disclosure. A statement by the examiner that merely generalizes that the amended drawing, specification or title contains new matter is not sufficient. Examiners should specifically identify the differences or changes made to the claimed design that are considered to introduce new matter into the original disclosure, and if possible, suggest how the amended drawing, specification or title can be corrected to overcome the rejection. Form paragraph 15.51 may be used.

If an amendment that introduces new matter into the claim is the result of a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112, first and second paragraphs for lack of enablement and indefiniteness, and it is clear that the disclosure of the claimed design as originally filed cannot be corrected without the introduction of new matter, the record of the application should reflect that the claim is seen to be fatally defective. Form paragraph 15.65 may be used to set forth this position. 

Ron

美國設計專利答辯案例

從一件hTC圖形使用者介面的設計專利學答辯，這件案子的過程中算是審查委員教我們如何寫美國設計專利！

本設計專利資訊：
申請號：29/355,311
設計專利號：D663,741
申請人：HTC
申請日：2010/02/05


審查資訊：

審查時首先會檢驗設計圖式之間為有專利性區隔（patentably distinct），也就是看圖式間的差異有否過大，尤其是這類圖式之間有變動的圖形使用者介面（實體物體除了使用狀態/參考圖之外不會有變動），

審查此案時，審查委員認為專利名稱不符電腦產生的影像（computer-generated images），MPEP 1504.01，原本此案名稱為「GRAPHIC USER INTERFACE FOR A DISPLAY SCREEN」，審查委員建議修改為「Display Screen with Graphic User Interface」，原因是圖式包括了整個手機的顯示屏。

接著，對於部份設計專利透過虛線（broken line）區分不主張的部份與主張專利的部份提出意見，MPEP 1503.02，虛線部份的說明應該是僅用來「舉例說明」而已（illustrative purposes only），要求修正，並提出修正意見。

審查委員引用引用美國專利第112條第二段提出核駁，也就是針對上述利用虛線表示不主張與主張的專利範圍的方式提出不明確核駁，其中指出Figs.1,2顯示有多個框（set of frames，也就是顯示屏上的多個方形圖示），但僅有一個框是實線，但說明書又提及"其他框"，但顯然這些"其他框"並非要主張的部份，因此有不明確的問題。

於是，審查委員建議將原本說明內容刪除，意思就是多說無意，審查委員自己建議描述如：
The appearance of the first embodiment of the transitional graphic user interface sequentially transitions between the images shown in Figs. 1-7.  The appearance of ...

申請人接著提出修正如下，正如審查委員所指示的，修正包括名稱、權利範圍與說明內容：

刪除"other frames"移動的相關描述，而插入審查委員的建議：

最後獲准設計專利部份圖式：

 

Ron
其他參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/02/blog-post_23.html

電子書還是要有翻書的感覺，不過卻不應是蘋果的專利

科技再如何進步，還是需要一點人性，比如看著電子書還是要有翻書的行為、聲音與一種遲滯感，不一定還要抹一下口水！

APPLE在2012年獲准兩個"翻書"電腦圖像的設計專利，兩個差不多，畫面差在一頁與兩頁的翻書動作，這很難想像是這麼新的專利，似乎以前有電子書就是這樣翻頁的。結果，因為事關重大，有人在2012年最後一天大家還在放假的時間提出一件美國再審案（re-examination），應該是頗為火大！

D670713揭示的圖形使用者界面如下：

再審控制號：90/012,756



D669906揭示的圖形使用者界面如下：

再審控制號：90/012,757

兩案的再審理由暫時無法看到，但是可以看到同時提出的IDS有US2006/0066510，此案是一個發明專利公開案，揭露一種影像顯示技術，要做為設計專利的參考前案(IDS)顯然應該要有接近的圖案，不錯，此案申請於2005年，其中圖式確實有與蘋果設計專利類似，在執行換頁時，影像呈現有翻頁的動畫。相關說明書內容描述這些動畫讓瀏覽電子型錄的人感覺如真實翻頁的感覺，文中更細節描述如何處理翻頁的動作。


 

電子書還是要有翻書的感覺，不過卻不應是蘋果的專利！

Ron
資料參考：FOSS Patents, Fish & Richardson

Taiwan Patent Examining Public Information Service

To aim to providing a friendly and comprehensive services, TIPO(Taiwan Intellectual Property Office) previously announces a service of "file wrapper search" allowing public to inquire the progress and history of the "recent" (increasing) patent applications.  Related URL link "https://tiponet.tipo.gov.tw/S090/UC090-C06/InquiryPatentCaseCensorInfo.do?language=en" is appeared on the first page of English Version Official TIPO web site.




The first look of the page "file wrapper search" shows a simplified search bar on the top of the page.  It is just easily filling out the interested application number (preferred), publication number, or patent number.  Then the page script may simply identify the number and show the search result.


The search result shows the details of progress of the patent application, such as the history to prosecute the patent, including office action/response, amendments, etc.

for example,

 

Ron

MISS WU與JASON WU

MISS WU是否是個"馳名商標"，或是具有"商標識別性"？若不討論申請人吳季剛的"知名度"，確實是具有爭議的商標申請案，至少就商標局、訴願委員會、法院第一庭的判決，是被駁回的。

細節我不曉得，用筆記提醒一些事情

吳季剛用MISS WU提出申請，困難重重，原因可能很多，但不是曾有人申請，因為根據圖樣英文、圖樣記號來找，都沒有「MISS WU」。
因此，核駁理由可能是名稱過於普通，對於商標著重於識別的用意有點距離，而且WU這個姓氏對於華人世界來說，辨識度可能有問題，而且前方加上MISS的稱謂，可能仍難以賦予其特別的辨識度，不如「鬍鬚張」、「黑面蔡」（商標審查基準的範例），參考規定：『若姓氏結合其他文字後，已脫離單純姓氏的意義，則得核准註冊』。
不過這又是一個國際知名設計師所提出的申請，所以或許最後可以協商獲准。參考規定：『申請人以姓氏作為商標，不具識別性，應證明取得後天識別性，始得註冊』 。


用申請人：吳季剛為關鍵字得出他有三個商標申請：

 其中MISS WU的細節如下，商品類別涉及包包、衣物等，顯然是針對女性：

申請歷史：

吳季剛另一以自己的英文名申請的商標為合格商標：


列舉中華民國商標審查基準的部份審查規定，其中「商標識別性審查基準」與姓名相關的段落有：
4.6 姓氏、姓名與肖像
4.6.1 姓氏
姓氏使用於商品或服務，通常只是用以表示業主的姓氏，而非作為來源的標識，在競爭同業使用相同的姓氏時，相關消費者即無法藉由姓氏識別來源，且從競爭的角度觀之，相同姓氏的競爭同業不論其進入市場的時間先後，均有自由使用自己姓氏的需要。故原則上，申請人以姓氏作為商標，不具識別性，應證明取得後天識別性，始得註冊。姓氏結合「氏」、「家」、「記」等文字，仍不脫離姓氏的含義，與單純的姓氏無異，適用相同的識別性判斷原則。若姓氏結合其他文字後，已脫離單純姓氏的意義，則得核准註冊。

4.6.2 姓名
姓名原則上具有識別性，只要非以他人著名姓名、藝名、筆名、字號申請註冊商標(商30Ⅰ○13 )，復無其他不得註冊的情形，原則上可准予註冊。姓名以簽名的形式表現時，其識別性與姓名適用相同的判斷原則。


但"Wu"在美國應該不是個熟識的標誌，也沒有意義，可能又加上Jason Wu的知名度，可以獲准算是有理可尋：

資訊更新：updated on Jan.22, 2013中華民國智慧財產局
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/News_NewsContent.aspx?NewsID=6465

有關媒體報導吳季剛「MISS WU」商標不能註冊事宜，本局說明如下：

一、目前吳季剛先生之「JASON WU」及貓頭鷹設計圖商標已分別經本局核准註冊，取得註冊第01451057、01456261號商標權在案。
二、通常姓氏使用於商品或服務，只是用以表示業主的姓氏，而非作為來源的標識，在競爭同業使用相同的姓氏時，相關消費者即無法藉由姓氏識別來源，且從競爭的角度觀之，相同姓氏的競爭同業不論其進入市場的時間先後，均有自由使用自己姓氏的需要。故原則上，申請人以姓氏作為商標，不具先天識別性，應證明取得後天識別性，始得註冊。吳季剛先生以單純未經設計之外文「MISS WU」於衣服等商品申請註冊，本局以「MISS ＷＵ」為單純姓氏結合稱謂所構成，「ＷＵ」復為國內常見姓氏，難謂消費者得藉以和吳季剛先生的產品產生聯結，故本案審查時申請人雖檢送「MISS ＷＵ」商標於國外媒體網頁有介紹及販售「MISS WU」的相關資訊，然於我國市場交易使用之具體事證不足(尚未進口我國市場)，尚不足以認定已使我國相關消費者認識其為指示商品來源之標識，而取得商標後天識別性，故將該商標予以核駁。
三、吳季剛先生在我國市場若持續使用該「MISS WU」商標，並檢具已在我國廣泛行銷之證據資料，證明國內消費者知道「MISS WU」也是他設計的產品，取得後天識別性，屆時本局就會核准註冊。

Ron

"coupled to"或"electrically connected"怎麼解釋？

有人問，何時要寫coupled to？何時又要用electrically connected to？我認為，因為不是重點的連接關係才會這樣寫，顯然可以用這樣的寫法擴張解釋範圍（相關案例也支持這樣的想法），約略可以粗分coupled to可適用於機構與電子元件的連接關係；electrically connected應僅適用電路關係！但即便有此分別，不見得會因為寫得廣而有較好的解釋範圍，只是寫這樣比較沒有爭議，不用解釋太多。「耦接、電連接」至少比connected, contact等可能會解釋成物理上"直接"的連接關係還來得較有彈性。


"coupled to"/"coupled with"中文稱「耦接」，我覺得算是連接關係最廣的寫法，但這樣的寫法常常也是因為那些相互「耦接」的物件間的連接關係 「不是重點」才會這樣寫。解釋專利範圍時，雖然可能可以獲得最廣的解釋，或是說，即便想用這樣的寫法取得較廣的範圍，但仍在解釋專利範圍時被說明書內容所描述的連接關係所影響，視個案認定，我認為不見得會有專利權人想要包括的所有連接關係。換句話說，「不是重點」的部份是否對侵權判斷是個重點？雖可能不會是關鍵的因素，但卻可能造成侵權訴訟的雙方在解釋專利範圍時產生爭議。

"electrically connected/coupled to"中文稱「電連接」，我覺得這是專門為電路元件的連接關係而定，元件間沒有結構上的連接關係，卻有訊號往來，包括電訊號，因此可以電連接包括各種連接關係，我認為這裡的解釋如同「耦接」，也是因為兩者個連接關係不是重點（否則會很細節地界定連接關係），解釋專利範圍不會因為寫得廣而有最好的解釋，但在侵權訴訟中，很難防止雙方對相同的描述有不同的解釋。

根據上述的解釋，即便企圖用較廣的方式描述「不是重點」的部份，但解釋範圍仍由法官依據實際狀況（說明書內容與事實）認定，這個連接關係仍可能成為侵權訴訟的關鍵之一，比如一件通用電子與三菱的侵權官司，資料參考Patently-O網站：

此案例為一件ITC的上訴案，由General Electric Company（GE，通用電子）在CAFC提出。
起因是先前由通用電子公司在ITC（美國國際貿易委員會）提出三菱重機（Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.）與三菱電力系統（Mitsubishi Power Systems）進口的變速風力渦輪侵害通用電子公司的專利US7,321,221 (221專利，ITC判決侵權不成立), US5,083,039 (039專利，此案於2011過期，基於ITC僅判斷是否未來要禁止進口，因此不列入考慮), US6,921,985 (985專利，ITC判斷侵權成立)。針對ITC審決認為並未有侵權事實的221專利，通用電子繼續上訴美國聯邦巡迴法院（CAFC）。

此件侵權訴訟涉及985專利中的Claim 15：
15. A wind turbine generator comprising:

a generator;

a power converter coupled with the generator, the power converter having an inverter coupled to receive power from the generator, a converter controller coupled with the inverter to monitor a current flow in the inverter wherein the converter controller is coupled to receive power from an uninterruptible power supply during a low voltage event, and a circuit coupled with the input of the inverter and with the converter controller to shunt current from the inverter and generator rotor in response to a control signal from the converter controller.

因為侵權物包括專利權人GE自己的產品中涉及"coupled with"解釋的結構關係，權利範圍中描述幾個"coupled to/with"的元件關係包括有：功率轉換器"耦接"於發電機、轉換控制器"耦接"於換流器、換流器輸入端與轉換控制器所耦接的電路等，法官在Claim Construction時，參考了985專利的權利範圍描述（claim language）說明書以及實作相關電路時的實際設計，對於其中：
「功率轉換器（power converter）耦接發電機（generator）」作出解釋，認為說明書圖式並未有相關結構描述；
再對「換流器輸入端與轉換控制器所耦接的電路」作出解釋，當電流經過換流器（inverter）與渦輪轉子（rotor）分流，這並不表示（限制）分流電路應該在換流器外部，認為權利範圍並未有任何結構上的限制。因此，根據法官的權利範圍解釋來看，"Coupled with"確實也算是有效擴張了一些解釋空間。（最後判定發回重審）

特別的是，判決中對於「coupled to/with」的解釋引用了CAFC於2005年的判決NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005)，其中涉及專利範圍中「receiver “connected to” or “coupled to” a processor or that the receiver “transfers” information to the processor」的解釋，其中被告侵權者NTP爭辯認為其中連接關係"connected to"、"coupled to"與"transfer from"表示receiver與processor為分開的兩的元件，但是法院解釋是兩個元件可能以電線、電連接（wires or other electrical conductors）的方式連接（connected）、鄰接（joined）、連結（linked）在一起，不論是在一個殼體內或是一個電路板上。

因此法院根據此案例作出本案Claim 15中的解釋認為：『We conclude that claim 15 requires that the circuit is coupled with the input of the inverter and the converter controller, whereby the current is shunted from the inverter and the rotor; this requirement does not limit the placement of the shunting circuitry to a location entirely external to the inverter. As in Linear Technology, “there is nothing in the claim language or specification that supports narrowly construing the terms to require a specific structural requirement or entirely distinct [circuits]. Rather, the [circuits] must only perform their stated functions.” 566 F.3d at 1055.6』。本案的"from"並非是指兩個元件應該是分開的。

Ron
資料參考Patently-O網站, GE v. Mitsubishi, NTP v. RIM

獨立項數目如何計算？(About Claims)

獨立項數目如何計算？

這是個問題嗎？對美國計算獨立項超項費用（3項以內不會多收錢），這就是個問題！

自己歸納了一些獨立項數目的算法：

1. 沒有依附其他項次的稱為獨立項
2. 引用式獨立項（如：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/08/blog-post.html）即便是一種獨立項的形式，但對於美國專利計算獨立項數目時，並不算
3. 獨立項的判斷不是看該項首字是"A"或"An"，而是看是否有依附其他項次的依附關係
4. 權利範圍寫作時，即便用"The"開始，但如果並未依附其他權項，仍是獨立項
5. 權利範圍中，若有兩個以上的專利標的，但是如果後項依附前項，項次在後者不會被算是獨立項

列舉一些範例：

案例一：這件案子申請時提出的專利標的分別用兩個"獨立項"界定，但計算獨立項數目時，僅算1項（即便申請之後還有次修正，也是這樣算）：

 

案例二：上述案例一的案子經過答辯新增兩的獨立項後，最後計算獨立項為3項，仍然排除其中一個依附式寫法的獨立項：

案例三：此件經答辯後，產生3+1個獨立項，其中3項被算為獨立項的範圍分別界定「computerized system」、「method」與「computer-readable medium」三個獨立項，另有一個以引用式獨立項界定範圍的「apparatus」，佈局算是十分完整，其中apparatus並未算為一個獨立項：

 最後還是算3個獨立項，未有獨立項超項費：

Ron