CA與DIV的應用

筆記

簡單來說
CA（Continuation Application, CA，延續案）是基於母案的揭露內容，提出不同於母案的權利範圍的新申請案，CA案可以享有母案申請日的優先申請日。
DIV（Divisional Application, CIP，分割案） 也是基於母案後續案，不過通常是根據智慧局發出的限制選擇要求（Restriction/Election Requirement）後，將暫時撤回未審（withdrawn non-elected claims）的權利範圍另提一分割申請案，同樣享有母案申請日的優先申請日。

CA案與DIV案都是根據母案揭露內容或是被暫撤的權利範圍提出另一新的申請案，與母案可以並存，有單獨的審查過程。不過，在獲准的權利範圍則可能因為與母案無法顯而易知地區隔（non-obviously distinct），而造成重複專利（obviousness-type double patenting）的核駁理由，這類核駁通常可以提出終權聲明（terminal disclaimer）克服。


一些參考：
分割案：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/07/121.html
延續案：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/01/120.html


CA案規範於美國專利法第120條，部份摘要顯示根據先前申請案的內容可以作出「修正」...

35 U.S.C. 120 Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States.

...if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. ...



DIV案規範於美國專利第121條，其中明文界定DIV案為母案權利範圍（inventions are claimed...）被認為是兩個或以上的獨立而可區隔的發明，審查委員可以要求該前案申請案僅能限縮於其中之一發明中，其餘發明則應以分割案處理。

35 U.S.C. 121 Divisional applications.

If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 of this title it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. ...

根據以上瞭解，顯然CA案與DIV案的後續程序接近，但是「動機」顯然不同，分割案為因為母案被限制在一個發明（由權利範圍所界定）中，若欲主張另外可區隔的發明（權利範圍），應為分割案。
CA案所界定的發明可能不是母案權利範圍所揭示，而是根據說明書記載內容中取得發明的內容另提的申請案。
曾經瞭解過一個案子，雖然申請人是根據限制選擇後non-elected的部份提出另一後申請案，不過提出後申請案時同時提出與原本non-elected範圍不太一樣的權利範圍，這樣仍定義為CA案。


Ron