CBM是一個訴訟前討論商業方法可專利性的異議制度，因此對象要件是要進入訴訟的專利，討論的議題多數為商業方法的可專利性，有關美國專利法第101條。
此例為CRS Advanced Technologies, Inc. v. Frontline Technologies, Inc.訴訟中的系爭專利，CBM案號為CBM2012-00005，可以在PTAB Trial網站上查詢。
其中訴願人引用前一陣子才作出的CAFC案例CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp.，可參考部落格文章：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/05/cafccls-bank-v-alice-corp.html
系爭專利為US6,675,151，是一種人力資源管理的技術，揭露一種利用中央資料庫有效找到替代勞動力的方法，獨立請求項如下，此電腦實現提供不同對象的替代人力管理系統，包括有中央伺服器，載有各種組織的資訊；有中央資料庫，包括各種人力與人力需求的資料；有本地端處理器，相對於中央資料庫，本地端的處理器分別有本地端資料庫，其中記載人力需求；還有電話網路，作為傳遞人力需求資訊的連線，伺服器將定期傳遞替代人力的資訊。
（後見之明）這是一個人力資源分配的一般技術，但是轉用到電腦系統實施，這類專利在很多分析中可以知道，到了法院階段往往站不住腳，特別僅是將人為程序轉換成電腦程序而沒有突出的技術突破的情況下，因此本案專利性確實是會被挑戰。
1. A computer-implemented substitute fulfillment system that identifies and secures substitute workers for a plurality of different organizations, comprising:
a central server that processes information associated with a plurality of different organizations;
a central database coupled to the central server, the central database including records that store substitute fulfillment data associated with each of the plurality of different organizations, wherein for each of the different organizations the fulfillment data includes worker records representing workers that may be absent from the organization and substitute worker records representing substitute workers that may be used to fill a position of an absent worker;
a plurality of local processors that are remote from the central server, each of the local processors being associated with one of the different organizations and having a separate local database coupled thereto, wherein each local database is associated with one of the different organizations and includes worker records representing workers that may be absent from the organization and substitute worker records representing substitute workers that may be used to fill a position of an absent worker;
wherein said organizations comprise one or more of schools, school districts, retail banks, branch offices of banks, convenience stores, manufacturing facilities, fire departments, police departments, hospitals, transportation departments, airlines and temporary worker agencies;
wherein the central database maintains each of the records on each local database in parallel with a corresponding record on the central database by periodically updating the records on the local databases in response to data changes on the central database, and wherein each local database maintains records on the central database in parallel with corresponding records on the local database by periodically updating the records on the central database in response to the data changes on the local database;
at least one telephone communication link coupled to the central server, wherein the telephone communication link provides information representing absent workers to the central server, the central server identifies one or more of the substitute workers in response to the information representing absent workers, and the central server communicates information representing positions to be filled to substitute workers via the telephone communication link or an Internet communication link and secures one or more substitute workers via the telephone communication link or the Internet link; and
wherein the central server periodically transmits reports that include absentee and substitute information to each of the different organizations via the telephone communication link or the Internet communication link.
CBM涉及的專利範圍有Claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, 33，專利在CBM程序中先由Frontline對第一次PTAB決定提出回應、聽證（hearing），在此最終決定中認定上述專利範圍不具專利性，不符美國專利法第101條規定的可專利標的。This decision is a final written decision under 35 U.S.C. § 328(a) as to the patentability of the challenged claims. Based on the record presented, we hold that all the challenged claims, claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 of the ’151 patent, are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
此案PTAB最終決定中提到本系爭專利也曾經遭遇單方再審（ex parte reexamination）的挑戰，而且時間點在美國最高法院作出Bilski判例之前，因此是否連結到有意義的硬體特徵的專利性判斷尚不明確，因此仍保有此專利有效性。
但在此時，在普遍"敵視"商業方法專利的氣氛下，加上Bilski判例的參考，本系爭專利的幾個爭議的專利範圍在CBM程序下被駁回。
過程中，CRS質疑專利範圍不符35USC101的規定，認為發明僅是僱用臨時工的方法，從技術面來看僅為抽象概念。有趣的是，訴願與被訴方分別提出專利範圍解釋，在何謂電腦（computers），CRS主張為一般目的的計算裝置，這命中Bilski不具可專利性的判斷，即便Frontline認為這是一些可以處理數據的機器。對於posting這個動詞來看，CRS認為是虛擬顯示資訊的動作，Frontline則認為是公佈或是散布等。
Bilski判例確實成為PTAB判斷此案是否有效的重要依據，判斷發明是否是抽象概念就是採用「machine-ortransformation test」判斷準則。PTAB更參考好幾件CAFC針對101相關議題的判決，透過專利是否併入有意義、有貢獻的技術特徵來判斷方法專利是否有效。
結論是，上述系爭專利範圍無效。
This is a final written decision of the Board under 35 U.S.C. § 328(a). We hold Frontline’s claims 3, 6, 7, 16, 24, and 33 to be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, the claims recite unpatentable abstract ideas, and the claims do not provide enough significant meaningful limitations to transform these abstract ideas into patent-eligible applications of these abstractions.
參考資料：
http://www.sughrue.com/ptab-finds-business-method-claims-reciting-generic-computer-technology-unpatentable-under-35-usc--101-02-07-20141/
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言