2013年2月28日 星期四

韓國訴願制度(IPT)

韓國專利審查流程:


韓國專利申請案經實際審查之後,如果不核准,會發出拒絕理由書(reason for refusal),在經過答辯後,若又不准,還可提出再審(reconsideration of),或說re-examination,可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/07/blog-post_28.html

之後,若仍無法獲准,智慧局發出核駁審定(decision of refusal),此時,申請人就只能提出訴願(Appeal),訴願結果可能維持智慧局的核駁審定;也可能否決智慧局的核駁理由,但會發回智慧局繼續審查此件專利。

其中特別的是,進入訴願程序時,由IPT(Intellectual Patent Tribunal,可翻為"專利法庭")審理該案件。此IPT專利法庭卻又不同於韓國專利審查制度中的專利法院(patent court),可參閱:http://www.kipo.go.kr/kpo/user.tdf?a=user.english.html.HtmlApp&c=30300&catmenu=ek03_06_01

在韓國,智慧財產權的法院系統包括有IPT(專利法庭)、Patent Court(專利法院)與最高法院(Supreme Court),其中IPT為1998年合併審判委員會(Trial Board)與上訴委員會(Appellate Trial Board)所形成,獨立於KIPO的運作,其中法官稱為行政專利法官(administrative patent judge)。如果專利申請人不服IPT的決定,可以繼續上訴專利法院或是最高法院。

IPT組織如下,由訴願部、審理策略部與訴訟部所組成。

Ron
資料來源:KIPO
(感謝朋友來電討論,才有此分享)

2013年2月27日 星期三

優先權筆記

優先權筆記

一項專利範圍僅能主張一件先前申請案(同一申請人)申請日的好處,一件專利案的多個權利範圍可以分別主張多個先前申請案的優先權日。

優先權的概念是,一個專利主張的發明(權利範圍)若已經揭露於同一申請人的另一個專利中,後申請案可以主張前一個專利的申請日期作為優先權日,享有新穎性的優惠;若一個專利所主張的發明已經由同一申請人的不同先前申請案所揭露,可以主張複數個優先權日,自然最早那件申請日與後申請案申請日不能超出規定的期限,如一年。

MPEP201.11/37 CFR 1.78規範先前申請案優惠期的主張。

先前申請案的優惠期主張包括了35USC120所界定的延續案,與35USC119的國際優先權。
其中120條規範可以主張新穎性優惠的先前申請案應滿足揭露的條件(112),並且是同一申請人(發明人、或經受讓)提出,主張時,前案程序不能被終結(包括拋棄、獲准專利);119條規範一般優先權,先前申請案包括美國臨時申請案(provisional application)、國內其他案、他國申請案等,優先權日的主張通常是不能超過最早申請日後12個月。

上述各種可以主張先前申請案申請日好處的規定中,其中重要的規定是,後申請案所界定的發明要完整揭露於先前的「一件」先前申請案中,該項專利範圍才能主張某一件前案的優先權;複數優先權的概念是,獨立項已經揭示於某一件同一申請人的先前申請案,其附屬項新增的特徵又揭露在另一先前申請案中,但是此先前申請案仍要完整揭露此後申請案的獨立範圍,才能滿足優先權的規定。(簡單來說,一個權利範圍應該僅能主張一件先前申請案的優先權日,複數優先權是說多個權利範圍可分別主張不同的先前申請案優先權日)

37CFR1.78段落III(C)中規範了複數優先權的規定
如果一個申請案為其他案子的延續案,包括CA, Divisional, CIP,應該要註記一序列過程在後申請案中;若後申請案直接主張臨時申請案的好處,雖並無強制要求定義出申請案與先前臨時申請案的關聯,但是不可忽略中間過程中關聯的申請案。


CIP案主張不同於其母案所主張的優先權案申請日,可參閱:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/11/cip.html

Ron
這篇文章還不錯:
http://patentdic.blogspot.tw/2006/08/blog-post.html

2013年2月26日 星期二

一個專利合理的項次是多少?

一個專利合理的項次是多少?

答案應該是,視個案認定,因為一個發明的難易度、技術水平(前案擁擠的程度),與是否有利用多種角度來界定,會影響專利範圍的數目,比如要界定一個裝置發明,除了裝置本身,可能又界定了使用這個裝置的系統,使用這個裝置產生的方法等,或是裝置本身又可用不同的表達方式界定,而又多出其他的獨立範圍。但是,在實務上,常常項次不僅是看技術難易度或是如何表達專利範圍,而是價格左右了項數。

我粗淺地以自己的實務經驗判斷,我覺得,美國專利一般的技術(中等難度)規劃到總項20項(3項獨立項內不超收費用)是個不錯而合理的數目;中國與台灣目前在總項10項內不超收費用則有點少,但仍可完整表達一個專利技術特徵,不過附屬項則會有點需要取捨,規劃上,如果客戶同意,到15項或許是個合理的數目。歐洲專利或許10項是個不錯的數目,日、韓等較高收費的國家可能是逐項考慮的!

這些我認為合理的數目當然只是參考,而且是針對送件時的狀態,將來經過答辯修正,多數會變少吧!技術難易度或是是否僅是改良專利仍會影響規劃的範圍項次,不過,根據Patently-O部落格作出的統計數字,確實還算可以反映出一些事實,特別可能是常常在漲價的專利費用有關!

比如:http://www.patentlyo.com/.a/6a00d8341c588553ef017ee8ab6abf970d-popup
這張統計表顯示過去20,30年的核准專利所包括的權利範圍項數,其中每個藍色點為每週的平均值,紅色線為20周的中位數(median),不論如何解讀,可以看到20這個被價格限制到的天險,過去7年(06-12)甚至有個明顯的降幅,理由可能是價格日益上漲的因素。

根據目前美國專利局所公告的專利費用,主要費用包括:至少在申請時(要實審)要繳美金390(申請費)+620(檢索費)+250(審查費);如果有超過3個獨立項,各項多出的獨立項要繳250美元;如果總項超過20項,逐項要繳62美元;多重附屬項要多繳460美元;到了領證時,又要繳1770(領證費)+300(公告費)+1150(0+3.5年年費)。這些還不包括審查過程中的答辯或是修正費用。

另外也提到這幾年也不太有一件超多項次的超大專利案,可能是因為申請人考量費用後,考慮用不同申請案提出,避免超項費用。

試算一下,如果一件專利共有40項範圍,其中有6項獨立項,申請時的官方費用為:美金390+620+250+750+1240=3250,若無答辯過程即核准,最後領證時再繳1770+300+1150=3220,共5350美元
如果拆成兩件各有3項獨立項、總項20項的申請案,申請費用共有:2*(390+620+250)=2520美元
如果有3件沒有超項費用的申請案,申請時需要美元3*(390+620+250)=3780
但是在1件案子送出,基本需要390+620+250+250*6+62*40=5240
以上並未考慮領證費用!


Ron

2013年2月23日 星期六

一個涉及均等論判斷態度的決定

一個涉及均等論的判決
Brilliant Instruments v. GuideTech (Fed. Cir. 2013)


這又是一件離職員工與原僱用公司的侵權訴訟主角Shalom Kattan原本是GuideTech的員工,之後離開公司新創公司Brilliant Instruments,照Patently-O的講法,GuideTech以專利侵權威脅Shalom Kattan,而Shalom Kattan提出無侵權的確認之訴(declaratory judgment),相關專利是US6,226,231, US6,091,671與US6,181,649(申請人是Guide Technology, Inc.,發明人都是Shalom Kattan),這三件專利都是討論電路中輸出入訊號的時差問題。

US6,226,231,分流器、電容器與電流電路的平行關係是界定於附屬範圍,而獨立項界定出各量測電路在各個通道中是彼此平行的:
1. A time interval analyzer for measuring time intervals between signal events, said analyzer comprising:
a signal channel that receives an input signal;
a plurality of measurement circuits defined within said signal channel in parallel with each other, each said measurement circuit being configured to receive said input signal, measure an occurrence of a first event of said input signal with respect to a predetermined time reference and output a time signal corresponding to the measurement of said occurrence; and
a processor circuit in communication with said signal channel, wherein said processor circuit is configured to receive and compare said time signals from said measurement circuits to each other to determine a time interval between said first event measured by a first said measurement circuit and an event measured by a second said measurement circuit.

8. A time interval analyzer for measuring time intervals between signal events, said analyzer comprising:
a signal channel that receives an input signal;
a plurality of measurement circuits defined within said signal channel in parallel with each other, each said measurement circuit including
a comparator that receives said input signal and a reference signal, compares said input signal to said reference signal and outputs a binary signal responsively to said comparison, and
an interpolator circuit, wherein said interpolator circuit is configured to measure a time period between a first event in said binary signal and a reference event of a time base signal and to output a time signal corresponding to said time period; and
a processor circuit in communication with said signal channel, wherein said processor circuit is configured to receive and compare said time signals from said measurement circuits to each other to determine a time interval between said first event measured by a first said measurement circuit and an event measured by a second said measurement circuit.
10. The analyzer as in claim 8, wherein each said interpolator includes
a trigger circuit that receives said binary signal and that outputs a trigger signal at a triggering level upon occurrence of said first event and at a non-triggering level upon occurrence of a reference event that follows said first event,
a first current circuit having a current source or a current sink,
a second current circuit having
a current sink where said first current circuit has a current source, or
a current source where said first current circuit has a current sink,
a capacitor,
a shunt,
wherein said shunt and said capacitor are operatively disposed in parallel with respect to said first current circuit,
wherein said shunt is disposed between said first current circuit and said second current circuit, and
wherein said shunt receives said trigger signal and is selectable between conducting and non-conducting states between said first current circuit and said second current circuit depending upon said trigger signal so that
said shunt is driven to said conducting state from said non-conducting state upon receiving said trigger signal at said triggering level and
said shunt is driven to said non-conducting state from said conducting state upon receiving said trigger signal at said non-triggering level.
本案在地方法院的簡易判決(summary judgment)認為Brilliant Instruments並無侵害上述GuideTech的專利,於是GuideTech上訴到聯邦法院,聯邦法院駁回部份地方法院的判決,認為在均等論(doctrine of equivalents)的判斷下,Brilliant Instruments侵權。

均等論的適用,此案例引述了判例Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997),可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/02/blog-post_23.html

在上述幾個專利中,專利範圍界定時間間隔分析器(time interval analyzer)的分流器(shunt)、電容器(capacitor)與第一電流電路為平行設置(此案寫為operatively disposed in parallel),而被告侵權物雖有電流器,但是卻是在第一電流電路內部,並非是平行設置,因此判斷為不滿足文義讀取,但對於專利權人的專家來看,這兩者在function-way-result測試下為均等。聯邦法院法官於是作出類似結論,任何人都可以判斷出被告侵權物中的電容器是設在電流電路中,而非專利範圍所界定為平行設置,但是在此技術領域中,電路元件位置的改變是否為實質具有意義的改變?


就此案來看,聯邦法院法官同意專利權人GuideTech的解釋(updated on Feb.25, 2013,顯見逐元件判斷均等效果為一個比較好而避免語言表達差異的方式),認為地方法院簡易判決中並未逐元件、逐限制條件判斷是否有均等效果,因此發回重審。


Ron
資料參考:Patently-O
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/12-1018.pdf

限制均等論的適用

筆記

此最高法院的判例要求權利範圍與被告侵權物之間應逐個元件比對是否有一致的功能、方式或是結果,而非整個權利範圍總的(as a whole)判斷,避免語文產生的模糊解釋空間。

參考先前專利分析:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/blog-post_4955.html

In Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), the Supreme Court severely limited power of the doctrine of equivalents by ruling that the equivalents test must be done on an element-by-element basis rather than by focusing on the claim as a whole.

為避免專利權人濫用均等論來解釋專利範圍,在此判例中,美國最高法院對於專利侵權判斷的態度仍是逐元件(element-by-element)比對,而非僅由專利範圍整體的效果(總的,as a whole)來看:
用於均等論的特定語言框架(particular linguistic framework)並不會比證據的必要調查重要,也就是侵權判斷應著重在被告侵權產品或是流程中的元件是否相同或等效(identical or equivalent to)專利範圍的每一個元件,不同的語言框架可能會根據事實而適用不同的案件。著重在個別元件的判斷方式可以避免文字產生的模糊解釋空間。侵權比對時,若沒有文義讀取,顯然被告侵權物採用了替代方案,侵權判斷應著重在被告侵權產品的各個元件與專利範圍中各元件之間是否有一致的功能、方式與結果(function, way, and result),若被告侵權產品的特定元件與專利範圍特定元件實質上不同,則不應判斷為侵權。

[原文,摘自Patently-O部落格的摘錄文章]
In our view, the particular linguistic framework used [for the Doctrine of Equivalents] is less important than whether the test is probative of the essential inquiry: Does the accused product or process contain elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention? Different linguistic frameworks may be more suitable to different cases, depending on their particular facts. A focus on individual elements and a special vigilance against allowing the concept of equivalence to eliminate completely any such elements should reduce considerably the imprecision of whatever language is used. An analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute element plays a role substantially different from the claimed element. With these limiting principles as a backdrop, we see no purpose in going further and micromanaging the Federal Circuit's particular word choice for analyzing equivalence. We expect that the Federal Circuit will refine the formulation of the test for equivalence in the orderly course of case-by-case determinations, and we leave such refinement to that court's sound judgment in this area of its special expertise.  


Ron

2013年2月22日 星期五

Oracle與Google針對JAVA程式著作權的爭議(Google合理使用?)


Oracle與Google針對JAVA程式著作權的爭議(Google合理使用?)

Oracle與Google的爭議除了有關JAVA語言專利侵權的訴訟外,更涉及Android作業系統中採用Java相關API的著作權問題,相關先前報導如下:
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/08/oraclegoogle.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/04/googleoraclejava.html

這個爭議關於「如何使用這個普遍應用在開放原始碼作業系統、網路作業環境的JAVA語言」,當Oracle向Sun Microsystems併購JAVA就有想到這一層面的益處,也就是即便JAVA可免費使用,但所有使用JAVA語言的人都仍有Oracle/Sun的授權。

Google就是相對一些傳統軟體公司(如IBM, Sony, RedHat...)較晚進入這個領域的公司,當然也是因為Android受到多數手機公司的採用,Oracle看到有利可爭。
Google算是部份接受授權協議,卻又不完全接受。為了要快速進入行動通訊作業系統,Android使用了JAVA原始碼,也讓程式人員容易依照過去的技術開發Android程式。
但是由於Google使用此原始碼作為進入手機商業市場中,甚至也與已經經過Oracle授權的公司對抗,因此不論是動機或是商業利益,應該都是公平地經由Oracle授權使用。
而法院的觀點應該是確保著作權的行使,而著作權侵害判斷則是看是否軟體程式是否直接使用他人的原始程式表示(original expression)?
software code is protectable expression because authors select and arrange lines of source code in an original way(Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (1992))

此案在地方法院中,陪審團認為Google並無專利侵權的事實,但違反著作權。不過認為Google算是合理使用(fair-use defense,公眾利益、程式設計師的利益),因此駁回Oracle的告訴。
(這個"合理使用"的答辯也是衝著JAVA立意"良好"所作出的合理意見,因為JAVA原始初衷就是要打破如Apple, Microsoft平台壁壘分明的現象,鼓勵大家撰寫一次JAVA程式,不用重寫,就可以同時在不同的平台上執行,於是,利用JAVA程式的好處成為一種公眾利益,這也是Android被普遍採用的理由之一)

Oracle於是上訴聯邦法院,FOSS Patents持續報導這個爭議,顯然各方對於這個涉及公眾使用權利與程式設計者的爭議有不同見解,至少有兩種意見:
一方是由Business Software Alliance(BSA,這是一個軟體製造商組成為了要解決智慧財產權爭議的聯盟,會員如Adobe, Autodesk, Apple, IBM, Microsoft, ...)提出;另一方面則是由Microsoft, EMC, NetApp提出的共同意見。

法院基於JAVA程式設計的動機是讓程式設計者不用重寫程式而能執行於不同硬體上,因此稱之API(Application Programming Interface)。法院將JAVA程式碼分為兩種型式,一是作為程式宣告而必要使用的實現碼(implementing code),這些是無法被改寫的,也就是即便是Google也無法自己去修改的程式碼部份,證明Google的合理使用;另一部份則是程式設計師自行開發的功能,此部份可能不是必要使用JAVA原始碼的部份,因此如果Google仍採用,則可能並非是合理使用。

JAVA程式碼涉及Sun/Oracle的授權協議:
第一,免費使用的General Public License(GPL),稱為開放原始碼(open source),被免費授權使用的大眾若使用其中套件(packages)開發其他新的程式,應須貢獻回整個社群,也成為開放原始碼的一部分;
第二,非允許使用全部JAVA原始碼的Specification License,不同GPL,是JAVA程式中的規格部份,使用在程式宣告中,需要Oracle授權使用;
第三,商業授權,可以使用並客製化JAVA程式碼,並無需公開原始碼,但此部份需要經由Oracle授權採用(付費)。

因此,接下來的爭議就是Google是否採用了Oracle/Sun自行開發而無合理使用目的的程式碼?

Ron
資料參考:FOSS Patents
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance
http://zh.scribd.com/doc/125115303/13-02-11-Oracle-v-Google-Appeal-Brief

2013年2月21日 星期四

適用AIA法條的申請案判斷筆記

筆記

補充先前筆記:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/02/aia.html

102(a)(1)規定會成為專利申請案的前案條件為:
已專利的內容;
公開描述的內容;
公開使用;
公開販售;
其他被公眾知悉者。
(以上並未規定是"他人"所為)

102(b)(1)規定上述102(a)(1)的例外情事:
發明人本身的揭露;
由發明人授意的揭露。

102(a)(2)規範可以成為專利申請案的前案條件有:
他人的美國專利;
美國專利申請案公開;
國際申請案的公開。

102(b)(2)規定上述102(a)(2)的例外情事:
發明人或發明人授意的揭露內容;
前案為共同擁有或是根據合約的轉讓同一人。

若遭遇核駁,前案符合上述例外,可透過宣告克服前案,聲明:前述各種前案揭露為發明人或共同發明人所為;公開揭露內容與專利標的由發明人或共同發明人直接或間接獲得。

是否為適用上述AIA102/103等規定的申請案,有以下注意事項:
(1)權利範圍存在於有效申請案為2013/3/16當日或之後在特定美國專利申請案中,適用AIA102,103;
(2)專利範圍存在由2013/3/16當日或之後提出專利申請案所衍生的延續案、分割案、部份延續案(CIP)中,適用AIA102,103;
(3)若申請案經修改併入存在有新事物(new matter),如CIP案,該案不會成為適用AIA102,103的申請案;
(4)經修正併入的權利主張若已經揭露於在2013/3/16之前申請案中,該案不適用AIA102,103;
(5)過渡時期,若美國申請案申請日在2013/3/16當日或之後,但是主張2013/3/16之前申請日的益處(如優先權、臨時案、國際申請案),若其中仍有發明主張在2013/3/16當日或之後,應提出聲明,由USPTO判斷其中權利範圍為適用AIA或是pre-AIA。

(若申請案或其衍生的延續案的有效申請日在2013/3/16之前,適用舊法的102(g)的先前揭露條件)

Ron

2013年2月20日 星期三

英國專利法不允許同一發明獲准兩個或以上的專利


筆記

英國專利法不允許同一發明獲准兩個或以上的專利

這顯然是一發明一專利的規定,不允許重複專利。

根據英國專利法第18(5)條規定,對於具有由相同申請人或其繼承人以相同優先權日所提出的兩個或多個專利申請案,審查官可以拒絕授予超過一件的專利權。

18. Substantive examination and grant or refusal of patent
(5) Where two or more applications for a patent for the same invention having the same priority date are filed by the same applicant or his successor in title, the comptroller may on that ground refuse to grant a patent in pursuance of more than one of the applications.

其中"the same invention"由權利範圍是否一致來判斷,因此並非指相同揭露內容的申請案就會有此疑慮,而是透過界定不同的權利範圍,使之有明確的範圍主張差異,其中或許有模糊界定的部份使得審查委員作出相關核駁意見,但若明確指出兩件或多件範圍間的差異,仍可取得不同的專利權。答辯時可考慮強調兩個申請案所主張的發明並非一樣,分屬不同的專利類別,並無重複專利的疑慮,非英國專利法第18(5)條所載情況。

Ron

AIA指導手冊筆記

筆記

USPTO first inventor to file指導手冊:
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/FITF_Final_Guidelines_FR_2-14-2013.pdf
http://www.uspto.gov/aia_implementation/FITF_Final_Rule_FR_2-14-2013.pdf

可先參考:
(AIA 102)http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/aia102.html
(AIA 103)http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/103.html

一些要點:

審查委員審查中引用前案(prior art)將基於審查中專利申請案的有效申請日(effective filing date)前的專利、專利公開案,並參考這些前案的最早美國、國外、國際申請日;
先前發明活動排除了先前102條規定的先前在美國國內公開使用、販售作為主張”先前發明”的新穎性、進步性的判斷基礎;採用共同研究合同作為新穎性、進步性的先前活動的根據。
...treats patents and patent application publications as prior art as of their earliest effective U.S., foreign, or international filing date, eliminates the requirement that a prior public use or sale activity be ‘‘in this country’’ to be a prior art activity, and treats commonly owned or joint research agreement patents and patent application publications as being by the same inventive entity for purposes of novelty, as well as nonobviousness.

102(a)(1)不具新穎性的規定為,若發明之專利申請案有效申請日前,該發明已被專利、公開、公開使用、銷售或被公眾知悉,不予專利
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) provides that a person is not entitled to a patent if the claimed
invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.

102(a)(2)不具新穎性的規定為,若發明已被他人先前申請的已領證專利所描述、專利申請案所公開,不予專利
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) provides that a person is not entitled to a patent if the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under 35 U.S.C. 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under 35 U.S.C. 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor, and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(35 U.S.C. 151 Issue of patent規定獲准的專利領證應於收到核准通知後三個月內繳領證費,否則專利權視為拋棄。)

102(b)規範102(a)的例外情事
AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b) sets forth exceptions to prior art established in AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a).
102(b)
揭露的人為專利的發明人、共同發明人,或其他直接或間接由發明人或共同發明人授權取得的人;或發明被發明人、共同發明或其他被發明人授權取得的人所公眾公開,不影響新穎性之判斷。

AIA 35 U.S.C. 103規範基於專利申請案有效申請日作出發明是否具有顯而易見性,而並非基於發明完成日。其中顯而易見性的判斷僅簡單判斷符合102的引證案與發明的差異是否具有可專利性。

Ron

2013年2月19日 星期二

修正過程的識別符

修正過程的識別符

其他參考:http://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/37-cfr-1121c-claims.html

在美國專利審理與答辯過程中會以識別符表示各權利項的狀態,這些標示在各權利範圍題號後的識別符規定可參考MPEP714(Amendments, Applicant’s Action)。

識別符有:
(Original)表示該項權利範圍自原申請案提出後沒變
(Currently amended)表示本次有修正
(Canceled)表示該項被刪除
(Withdrawn)表示該項暫時被撤出,不受審查
(Previously presented)表示該項曾經被修改過,但本次並未有變動
(New)表示該項在本次為新增範圍
(Not entered)表次該項曾在修正後被拒絕審查(The status identifier (not entered) is used for claims that were previously proposed in an amendment (e.g., after-final) that was denied entry.)
還有個識別符為(withdrawn – currently amended),表示該項即便被暫時撤出,但申請人仍提出修改(The status identifier (withdrawn – currently amended) is also acceptable for a withdrawn claim that is being currently amended)

MPEP中提供一些修正標示的範例:

上述識別符也有其他可替代的表示:

曾有朋友問我,withdrawn與canceled的差別在哪裡,如果權利範圍被canceled可恢復嗎?
我的回答是:
"withdraw"顯然是暫時不被審查,但仍保留該項權利,可能會在適當的答辯與修正過程恢復(Original)或是被修改(Currently amended),但是"Canceled"表示該項已經被刪除,如果申請人想要恢復此項範圍,僅能用新增(New,新增一個項次)的方式將該項範圍併回來。

在此處MPEP也有支持我講法的規定:僅能以新增範圍的方式恢復(reinstate)之前刪除的範圍((5) Reinstatement of previously canceled claim. A claim which was previously canceled may be reinstated only by adding the claim as a “new” claim with a new claim number.)

曾有朋友問我,經過限制選擇後有權利範圍未被選擇,但被標示為"Canceled",該項如何處置?
答案應該是:
限制選擇而未被選擇的項次應標示(Withdrawn),如果未被選擇的範圍仍有修改(應標示刪除線或下底線),可標示(Withdrawn)或(withdrawn - currently amended);若該項被刪除,還是要標示(Canceled),如上,即便在未選擇的範圍中,如果要恢復被撤出的範圍,即改為original或是有修改currently amended;如果要恢復被刪除的範圍,則應以新增new範圍補入。(這些改變都不會影響日後提出分割案、延續案的權利主張)
(For any amendment being filed in response to a restriction or election of species requirement and any subsequent amendment, any claims which are non-elected must have the status identifier (withdrawn). Any non-elected claims which are being amended must have either the status identifier (withdrawn) or (withdrawn – currently amended) and the text of the non-elected claims must be presented with markings to indicate the
changes. Any non-elected claims that are being canceled must have the status identifier (canceled).)

Ron

2013年2月18日 星期一

若功能性用語關係到發明的本質,仍有份量!(about Claims)


這是一個有關功能性用語的用處的判決

系爭專利為IBM的專利申請案:10/906,508,此案涉及一種確保記憶體測試軟體正確性的方法(METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VERIFYING MEMORY TESTING SOFTWARE),其主張的權利範圍顯然有關於軟體專利,此案經USPTO核駁而IBM上訴至聯邦巡迴法院(CAFC)後確認,在前言(preamble)所記載的語言或是記載於權利範圍中功能性描述的內容具有專利的份量(patentable weight),特別是權利範圍中功能性用語是指出該發明的目的。

在USPTO審理階段,審查委員認為其中功能性描述為可預期的目的(intended purpose),因此應不具有實際的技術限制,如果要達到該項目的,應明確地記載在權利範圍中。到此來看,也如我認為的權利範圍應描述的方式,且依據一件2003年CAFC的案例:Minton v. Nat'l Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003),結論是當方法專利中"藉此"(whereby)的子句僅表達可預期的結果時,並無專利性的份量(not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited)。

進入CAFC階段時,法官同樣同意whereby子句並未有可專利份量,但對於此案在「verify the accuracy」的闡述卻與USPTO不同,認為其中的描述已經關聯到「發明的本質(essence of the invention)」,理應有權利範圍的影響,其中引用CAFC2010年的案例:Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010),若"for..."用語適當地界定該發明,並非僅是可預期的目的或是使用的描述。

此案的爭議源自USPTO引用US5,912,901對比10/906,508的Claims 1, 9, 17,USPTO認為各項前言「A method for "verifying the accuracy of logical-tophysical mapping software" designed for testing memory devices」並未限制權利範圍,因此解釋權利範圍並不包括for verifying the accuracy...的內容,因此認為系爭專利不具新穎性,但申請人上訴答辯此目的與引證案不同,CAFC認為USPTO並未能證明引證案已經揭露此目的,僅為透過比對記憶內容偵測記憶體錯誤,而非用於確認軟體的正確性,兩者有區隔。

系爭專利權利範圍在前言的部份寫出其技術目的,根據爭議內容,與引證案僅有此目的的差異,而此爭議僅涉及新穎性的核駁意見(anticipation rejection)

1. A method for verifying the accuracy of logical-to-physical mapping software designed for testing memory devices, said method comprising:
providing a built-in self test (BIST) fail control function to generate multiple simulated memory fails at various predetermined locations within a memory array of a memory device;
testing said memory array via a memory tester;
generating a bit fail map by said logical-to-physical mapping software based on all memory fails indicated by said memory tester, wherein said bit fail map indicates physical locations of all fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software; and
comparing said fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software to said various predetermined memory locations to verify the accuracy of said logical-to-physical mapping software.


9. A computer program product residing on a computer usable medium for verifying the accuracy of logical-to-physical mapping software designed for testing memory devices, said computer program product comprising:
program code means for utilizing a built-in self test (BIST) fail control function to generate multiple simulated memory fails at various predetermined locations within a memory array of a memory device;
program code means for testing said memory array via a memory tester;
program code means for generating a bit fail map by said logical-to-physical mapping software based on all memory fails indicated by said memory tester, wherein said bit fail map indicates physical locations of all fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software; and
program code means for comparing said fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software to said various predetermined memory locations to verify the accuracy of said logical-to-physical mapping software.


17. A built-in self-test (BIST) unit for verifying a logical-to-physical transform algorithm designed to test integrated circuit memory devices, said BIST unit comprising:
a built-in self test (BIST) fail control module for generating a plurality of simulated memory fails at various predetermined locations within a memory array of a memory device;
means for testing said memory array via a memory tester;
means for generating a bit fail map by said logical-to-physical mapping software based on all memory fails indicated by said memory tester, wherein said bit fail map indicates physical locations of all fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software; and
means for comparing said fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software to said various predetermined memory locations to verify the accuracy of said logical-to-physical mapping software.


結論:此爭議僅涉及anticipation(新穎性),並未討論到顯而易見性(obviousness),因此目前駁回USPTO的決定仍未證明系爭專利具有專利性,僅證明CAFC的態度是涉及發明本質的功能性用語仍有效力,至少可用於證明新穎性!

顯然CAFC法官認為前言或是whereby中功能性敘述對權利範圍仍有影響,不過僅有關連到發明本質的部份有用,對於解釋專利範圍在法院階段給予申請人有較多的解釋空間,不過也不會太廣,但是對於USPTO審理階段,仍應該在權利範圍中(元件描述)完整描述整個發明,而避免僅用功能性用語,避免過於模糊的地帶。然而,其實權利範圍仍可接受功能性用語,至少美國專利法如第112(f)條讓申請人以功能性語言描述權利範圍,但趨勢並不鼓勵。

Ron
資料參考:Patently-O, CAFC

2013年2月7日 星期四

多重附屬之"獨立項"的項次計算(About Claims)

如果一個獨立項(A, An開始)寫成"引用式",而且為"多重依附式",要如何計算,價錢如何計算?

先用推論的,會有這樣的討論是因為一般會認為"A"或"An"開始的專利範圍為獨立項,實際則不然,獨立項的判斷就是「沒有與其他權利項有依附關係」的權利請求項才為"獨立項",這也是英文"Independent"的意義。

多重附屬之"獨立項":
首先,"引用式"獨立項並不算為獨立項;再是,如果算為附屬項,則可以多重附屬項的方式計算項次與費用;價格會增加一筆多重附屬項的費用,項次會依照拆開多重依附的關係來計算。因此此類"獨立項"僅以多重附屬項的方式計算費用與項次。

找個實例:
比如此案從頭到尾的權利範圍都是"A"開始,表面上看來共有16項範圍,申請案與核准案一樣,沒有核駁OA,根據申請資料頁內費用表可得出:
1. 多重附屬項為一次收費(360元,漲價前);
2. 從彼此依附關係來看,共有1項獨立項;
3. 附屬項關係頗為清楚也有點複雜,也就是多重附屬項被另一附屬項所依附,此項依附項又有可能被另一附屬項所依附,因此產生更多的附屬項次,此例雖表面上有16項,但經拆解後計算共有42項(含1項獨立項)。


新修正多重附屬項費用:


其他討論:

多項附屬項收費為固定一筆,因此不論有幾項多重附屬項,都僅收一筆錢
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/12/blog-post_05.html
權利範圍項次與費用的計算範例,多重附屬項項次會被拆開計算,如果有多重依附多重的情況,則被視為不適當,僅以1項計算(該項會被核駁)
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/12/blog-post_02.html
獨立項數目如何計算?引用式獨立項不算是獨立項
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/01/blog-post_5213.html

Ron

2013年2月6日 星期三

"non-transitory" computer-readable medium才是正確寫法!(About Claims)

根據美國專利局一篇對於「電腦可讀取媒體(computer readable media)」的可專利性的註釋,其中先提到專利局審查委員審理案件時應該以最廣而合理的角度根據說明書來闡釋專利範圍(相關案例In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989)),但對於「computer readable medium」要作出最廣的闡釋,此類medium理應涵蓋了非暫態的具體介質(non-transitory tangible media)與暫態的訊號(transitory propagating signals),因此關於「暫態的訊號」則會歸類為法定不可專利的標的,不符美國專利法第101條規定(相關案例為In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57(Fed. Cir. 2007))。

申請人常用「computer-readable medium」保護沒有具體實物的訊號、方法等,因此應該排除涵蓋了暫態的訊號的解釋空間,因此,建議在主張此類範圍時,可以補入「non-transitory」在權利範圍中,並表示這個修訂不會有新事物的產生。
原文:
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/101_crm_20100127.pdf

實際案例:

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
相關早期文章:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/02/lexicographer.html

刪除暫時撤回的權項

筆記

不論在答辯期間,或是訴願期限,總有權利範圍會暫時撤回(withdraw),也就是申請人希望保留卻不提出爭辯的權利範圍,當然此類也可能是限制選擇要求中未被選擇的權項。
根據MPEP 1214.05規定,這些撤回的權項在審定後將由審查委員刪除,並通知申請人。

1214.05 Cancellation of Withdrawn Claims


Where an appellant withdraws some of the appealed claims (i.e., claims subject to a ground of rejection that the appellant did not present for review in the brief), and the Board reverses the examiner on the remaining appealed claims, the withdrawal is treated as an authorization to cancel the withdrawn claims. It is necessary for the examiner to notify the appellant of the cancellation of the withdrawn claims. 

MPEP 1215.03則細節規範審查委員可以執行的相關修訂
在撤回訴願時,相關的權利範圍視同刪除。
上訴人若未能在規定時間(如兩個月內)回應審查委員的核駁意見,訴願程序終結,相關權利範圍也視同刪除。

1215.03 Partial Withdrawal

A withdrawal of the appeal as to some of the claims on appeal operates as an authorization to cancel those claims from the application or reexamination proceeding and the appeal continues as to the remaining claims. The withdrawn claims will be canceled from an application by direction of the examiner at the time of the withdrawal of the appeal as to those claims. Examiner may use the following form paragraph to cancel the claims that are withdrawn from appeal at the time of the withdrawal:

12.121 Withdrawal of Appeal as to Some of the Claims on Appeal


The withdrawal of the appeal as to claims operates as an authorization to cancel these claims from the application or reexamination proceeding. See MPEP § 1215.03. Accordingly, these claims are canceled.

12.179.02 Dismissal Following New Ground(s) of Rejection in Examiner's Answer

Appellant failed to timely respond to the examiner's answer mailed on that included a new ground of rejection mailed on. Under 37 CFR 41.39(b), if an examiner's answer contains a rejection designated as a new ground of rejection, appellant must, within two months from the date of the examiner's answer, file either: (1) a request that prosecution be reopened by filing a reply under 37 CFR 1.111; or (2) a request that the appeal be maintained by filing a reply brief under 37 CFR 41.41, addressing each new ground of rejection, to avoid sua sponte dismissal of the appeal as to the claims subject to the new ground of rejection. In view of appellant's failure to file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 or a reply brief within the time period required by 37 CFR 41.39, the appeal as to claims is dismissed, and these claims are canceled.
Only claims remain in the application. The appeal continues as to these remaining claims. The application will be forwarded to the Board after mailing of this communication.

12.186 Dismissal Following A Supplemental Examiner"s Answer Written in Response to a Remand for Further Consideration of a Rejection

Appellant failed to timely respond to the supplemental examiner's answer mailed on that was written in response to a remand by the Board for further consideration of a rejection mailed on. Under 37 CFR 41.50(a)(2), appellant must, within two months from the date of the supplemental examiner's answer, file either: (1) a request that prosecution be reopened by filing a reply under 37 CFR 1.111; or (2) a request that the appeal be maintained by filing a reply brief under 37 CFR 41.41, to avoid sua sponte dismissal of the appeal as to the claims subject to the rejection for which the Board has remanded the proceeding. In view of appellant's failure to file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 or a reply brief within the time period required by 37 CFR 41.50(a)(2), the appeal as to claims is dismissed, and these claims are canceled.
Only claims remain in the application. The appeal continues as to these remaining claims. The application will be forwarded to the Board after mailing of this communication.


Ron
資料來源:bitlaw

2013年2月5日 星期二

用IP學地理--土耳其專利制度

土耳其雖是多數發明人/申請人不太在意的國家(但中國最近與土耳其達成雙邊合作協議),但土耳其卻因為同時為WIPO與EPO會員而擁有多數國家難以主張專利權的便利,所以除了其本國人來說,想要主張專利、商標的保護則可透過世界專利局與/或是歐洲專利局。

專利制度包括20年發明專利、10年登記新型專利與工業設計(兩者法規可互相套用),發明專利可於7年內主張實際審查,特別的是未主張實際審查的7年仍可有如登記新型的效力!
土耳其的法律、細則等都可自WIPO下載,但仍有資料不是很豐富的官方網站:
http://www.tpe.gov.tr/portal/default.jsp

官方網站可以切到英文網頁,其中比較有用的是專利、商標檢索,從最近cult of mac報導得知,土耳其有公司將"steve jobs"拿去註冊商標,我也找一下!
 商標檢索鍵入關鍵字steve jobs,結果如下:

工業設計檢索,再以Apple為例:



Ron

2013年2月2日 星期六

多螢技術簡單分析

多螢(multi-screen)技術是未來家庭、個人多媒體應用的重要趨勢,所謂多螢,簡單來說就是一個裝置的畫面可以顯示在另一個裝置的畫面上,比如手機畫面透過HDMI(有線)或是WHDI(wireless home digital interface,無線)手段顯示在另一個螢幕上。我覺得目前整合上十分完整的就是Apple TV,在同一個WLAN中可以輕易地將iphone/ipad的完整畫面顯示在電視上。Google TV也是有此企圖。新的Discovery and Launch(DIAL)規格讓一般手機透過程式可以將畫面輕易地透過機上盒顯示在電視上,或是直接投射在智慧電視上。
 

這類技術的專利應該是一大堆,初步分析一下,利用"multi-screen"與"wireless"關鍵字找美國專利中的分類,主要分佈在主分類為348(電視)、365(靜態資訊儲存與取得)、725(互動影像散布系統)等,也算是切中主題。
接著再由這些分類配合關鍵字multi-screen, wireless, tv等,得出約100件美國核准專利,這樣的數目就非常容易一探究竟。經初步瀏覽之後,發現除了美國公司(microsoft, google)以外,多數為日(sony, canon)、韓(samsung)大廠,尤其是Samsung目前獲得的專利數以及申請公開的數目比任何公司都多,其他如Sony都是做電視很厲害的!(註:這個分析僅是簡單地從標準關鍵字來搜尋,嚴格的分析恐怕不是這麼簡單)

看看其中幾件的權利範圍:

US 8,190,749,這件多螢技術應用在頭戴式顯示器與手機!
Google這件專利名為在多個裝置間存取一互動狀態的方法,也就是在多個裝置之間數位內容互動的技術,使用者可以在第一裝置上輸入指令,而將第二裝置所儲存的資訊傳輸到第一裝置上。簡單透過下圖可以表達這件專利的技術,第二裝置為手機一般的裝置,第一裝置則為電視機等的顯示裝置,透過網路可以交換資訊。此件案子特別的是,其中第一裝置可為頭戴式顯示器(HMD, head-mounted display),也就是將此頭戴式顯示器上所載的資訊可以與另一裝置交換。
根據專利範圍所描述,此頭戴式顯示器上執行的應用程式所產生的資訊與第二裝置上的應用程式產生交互作用,包括傳遞輸入指令與產生的資訊。
1. A method comprising:
storing contextual information that associates a state of a head-mounted display (HMD) with information that is associated with an interaction with a first application on the HMD to describe an interaction state on the HMD, wherein the state of the HMD comprises information about one or more applications of the HMD which are executed to provide predetermined functionality;
selecting a second device capable to provide access to the interaction state on the second device via a second application using the stored contextual information;
making a determination of attributes of the second device; and
based on the determination, the HMD transferring to the second device the stored contextual information and information associated with a user input to the first application on the HMD such that the second device is capable to provide via the second application access to the interaction state according to the user input to the first application.

US 2009/0284476
這件Apple的專利申請案涉及將使用者界面顯示到另一個裝置上,這對應到Apple TV上與ipad/iphone/ipod的互動。其中描述在手持裝置上的圖形使用者界面(GUI)投射到另一個裝置(如電視)上,顯示裝置將反映出使用者在手持裝置上的操作指令。從此案申請時專利範圍可知,Apple企圖由手持裝置、操作界面以至於顯示裝置端(Apple TV, iTV)等角度主張專利權。

1. A method for controlling a portable media device using an accessory, the method comprising, by the accessory:
providing configuration information to a portable media device;
receiving from the portable media device a first image signal that specifies a first graphical user interface image;
displaying the first graphical user interface image on a display device of the accessory;
detecting user operation of an input control of the accessory;
sending to the portable media device an input signal indicating that the input control was operated;
receiving from the portable media device a second image signal that specifies a second graphical user interface image to be displayed, the second graphical user interface image reflecting the operation of the input control; and
displaying the second graphical user interface image on the display device of the accessory.

US 8054319,這應該也算是一個多螢技術
Samsung這件專利更絕了,處理多個螢幕與多種應用的技術,專利涉及多螢幕管理與設定的方法。系統包括有多個螢幕,透過不同的方法顯示多個內容,設定時可指定透過特定方法設定各螢幕顯示的內容與輸出入管道。
權利範圍第1項界定了多螢幕的管理與設定方法,先由數位電視或是機上盒取得服務,產生多個顯示幕,顯示幕可為一個顯示器的多個虛擬顯示區域,接著連結各顯示幕與對應服務,並顯示。
1. A method of configuring and managing a multiscreen, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of broadcasting services in a digital television or a digital set top box;
generating a plurality of display screens, wherein each of the plurality of display screens is a virtual screen to present an output composition of a physical display device;
generating a plurality of logical screens, wherein each of the plurality of logical screens is a virtual screen to be associated with a display screen of the plurality of display screens and a display area on each of the plurality of display screens;
associating the plurality of broadcasting services with the plurality of logical screens;
associating the plurality of logical screens with the plurality of display screens;
discovering a display screen set including active display screens from among the plurality of display screens; and
discovering a screen set including active logical screens from among logical screens associated with a current display screen,
wherein each of the plurality of display screens is optionally associated to zero or more video output ports, and
wherein each of the output ports is for connection to an external device.

我透過一些簡單的APP也算是應用了多螢技術:
Slideshow Remote
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/slideshow-remote-for-powerpoint/id328556878?mt=8
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/01/remote-presentation-control.html

Doceri(數位白板)
http://doceri.com/

Ron

2013年2月1日 星期五

利用幾何圖案解鎖的專利

「利用幾何圖案解鎖」果然有個頗為強大的專利案,這樣的權利範圍恐怕不是太容易迴避,而且專利優先權可以追溯到西元2000年!(但他並未在其他國家主張專利,表示也阻卻了其他公司可能可以獲得類似的專利的可能)

美國專利US 8,352,745(System and method for controlling user access to an electronic device)的專利權人Micron Technology是個記憶體(尤其是固態硬碟)的公司,其專利佈局多半為半導體儲存裝置、資料處理等,所以這件源自2000年的專利佈局十分特殊。

從專利家族(用EPO網站查即可)來看,這件US 8,352,745的僅"一脈相承"源自2000年2月23日申請的09/511,092(獲准專利US6766456),其中歷經多次延續申請案(CA)的過程,家族中獲准專利還有US7877612、US8176547,並沒有其他國家佈局。

根據這一系列專利說明書來看,專利涉及存取電腦系統的使用者認證方法,其中認證採取預先設定輸入的內容,之後透過比對使用者輸入與此預設內容達到認證的目的,其中列舉了不少認證的方式,比如:透過鍵盤產生的文字、滑鼠軌跡、聲音認證,以及目前受到討論的「幾何圖形」,說明書也已經提及觸控屏,其中共同點就是電腦系統先預設使用者自己設定的比對資料,之後要求使用者用同樣的內容做一次,比對預設的內容來認證。

當時揭露書已經畫出所謂的「幾何圖案」:
判斷步驟也涉及目前解鎖的技術:


最早母案獲准的專利US6766456的權利範圍來看,顯然在2000年時電腦系統中難以採用幾何圖案來認證使用者,並不可能想到如今觸控的應用,蘋果公司也遲到2005年申請滑動解鎖的專利(可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/05/blog-post_16.htmlhttp://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/10/unlocking-device.htmlhttp://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/blog-post_4416.html)。

US6766456 Claim 1:

1. A method of authenticating a user of an electronic device, the method comprising:
receiving security information from a user,
receiving in the electronic device an authorization pattern provided by a mouse, wherein the authorization pattern identifies a particular movement made by the mouse;
determining whether the authorization pattern matches a stored pattern;
measuring a duration of time between the receipt of the security information and the authorization; and
granting the user access to the electronic device in the event of a satisfactory match and the duration of time is less than a threshold.


US 8,352,745 Claim 1界定一個系統,包括一個觸控屏,讓使用者沿著一個方向以描繪幾何圖案的方式輸入,以及一個處理電路,用以比對使用者輸入的幾何圖案與記載在記憶體中預設的幾何圖案。

1. A system comprising:
a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and
a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory.


Claim 11界定一個方法,包括接收使用者透過觸控屏輸入的幾何圖案,以及判斷幾何圖案是否接近(approximate)儲存的圖案。

11. A method comprising:
receiving a geometric pattern entered by a user on a touch screen of a system to gain access to the system, the geometric pattern being entered by the user by drawing the geometric pattern in a specified direction; and
determining with one or more computer processors if the user entered geometric pattern approximates a stored geometric pattern.


後記:
從這件老早的專利揭露書來看,具有"遠見"的揭露書確實會帶來無法預料的可能性,即便是天馬行空(但要有實施方式),仍可盡量將所知相關的可能應用都揭露出來,誰也不知過了10年會不會有類似的科技產生,而且所揭露的內容即便不拿來專利,也可以阻卻後續別人取得會阻礙自己發展的專利!當然,除了分割案外,很多措施(如continued application, CIP)都是美國才有的。
鼓勵在經費容許的範圍內申請美國案,美國案因為自我要求,多數比台灣、大陸都早會得知審查結果,可以再以美國案加速台案審查(事實上,台灣審查委員也會主動參考)。

Ron
資料參考:Patently-O