根據101條的規定，包括一般主流意見，可專利標的已經排除抽象概念（abstract idea）、自然現象（natural phenomenon）與自然產物（發現），也排除了人類心智活動的發明（mental process），比如將人類已有的行為程式化，如Bilski判例所討論的日常用品定價的方法，此時CLS bank案例則是涉及交易風險管裡的技術。
在此之際，看到Patently-O部落格討論一件案例（SmartGene v. ABL (Fed. Cir. 2014)），認為是CLS Bank形成判例的指標。
案例原文提到不少過去最高法院的意見，這些也都是建構101不可專利標的的權威：
系爭專利為：US6,081,786、US6,188,988，兩件為同一個家族的專利，都源自1998的相同美國臨時案。
US6,081,786，這件關於一種引導治療方法選擇的電腦產品專利是ABL（ADVANCED BIOLOGICAL LABORATORIES）輾轉取得，專利權利範圍看來是十分標準的軟體專利，標的包括引導選擇治療方法的方法、系統與相關電腦產品，各項範圍看來大同小異，都涉及已知疾病的治療方法的選擇，差異在保護標的，其中描述方法也十分刻意地連結到硬體裝置。技術主要是先提供病患資訊給記載有各種診療知識的電腦裝置，接著進行排序，而形成建議資訊。專利範圍看來是很清楚，又很模糊，因為知道在幹啥，但是細節可能就是要去想像使用者透過一個網頁填入需求，之後根據資料庫的內容而呈現出一些治療的選項。
1. A method for guiding the selection of a therapeutic treatment regimen for a patient with a known disease or medical condition, said method comprising:
(a) providing patient information to a computing device comprising:
a first knowledge base comprising a plurality of different therapeutic treatment regimens for said disease or medical condition;
a second knowledge base comprising a plurality of expert rules for evaluating and selecting a therapeutic treatment regimen for said disease or medical condition;
a third knowledge base comprising advisory information useful for the treatment of a patient with different constituents of said different therapeutic treatment regimens; and
(b) generating in said computing device a ranked listing of available therapeutic treatment regimens for said patient; and
(c) generating in said computing device advisory information for one or more therapeutic treatment regimens in said ranked listing based on said patient information and said expert rules.
引導選擇治療方法的系統：
23. A system for guiding the selection of a therapeutic treatment regimen for a patient with a known disease or medical condition, said system comprising:
(a) a computing device comprising:
a first knowledge base comprising a plurality of different therapeutic treatment regimens for said disease or medical condition;
a second knowledge base comprising a plurality of expert rules for selecting a therapeutic treatment regimen for said disease or medical condition;
a third knowledge base comprising advisory information useful for the treatment of a patient with different constituents of said different therapeutic treatment regimens; and
(b) means for providing patient information to said computing device;
(c) means for generating in said computing device a ranked listing of therapeutic treatment regimens for said patient; and
(d) means for generating in said computing device advisory information for one or more therapeutic treatment regimens in said ranked listing based on said patient information and said expert rules.
實現引導選擇治療方法的程式碼的儲存媒體：
45. A computer program product for guiding the selection of a therapeutic treatment regimen for a patient with a known disease or medical condition, said computer program product comprising a computer usable storage medium having computer readable program code means embodied in the medium, the computer readable program code means comprising:
(a) computer readable program code means for generating:
a first knowledge base comprising a plurality of different therapeutic treatment regimens for said disease or medical condition;
a second knowledge base comprising a plurality of expert rules for selecting a therapeutic treatment regimen for said disease or medical condition;
a third knowledge base comprising advisory information useful for the treatment of a patient with different constituents of said different therapeutic treatment regimens; and
(b) computer readable program code means for providing patient information;
(c) computer readable program code means for generating a ranked listing of available therapeutic treatment regimens for said patient; and
(d) computer readable program code means for generating advisory information for one or more therapeutic treatment regimens in said ranked listing based on said patient information and said expert rules.
這件案例之所以拿出來談，根據Patently-O作者的意見，是因為判決的法官很瞭解最高法院的運作以及判斷，或許會影響最高法院對於CLS Bank的決定。
參考Bilski, CLS Bank，以至於此ABL案例，可以看到，如果刻意連結到電腦裝置，但又沒有產生突出而有技術特徵的演化，也就是電腦裝置之於所要解決的技術並沒有特別的意義，而可能只是自動化的通常手段，這類專利將可能持續被挑戰；因此欲穩定地取得這類專利，應該要找到之於過去沒有電腦輔助的時代，加入電腦裝置所產生不可取代而突出的功能，而不僅是比較有效率、快速的功能。從我個人接觸的案例來看，通常會建議可以併入一些非一般電腦的硬件，也就是應該要有除了一般電腦技術以外新的技術、新的特徵，比如各種感測器、計時器、APP結合感測器，如果僅是一般電腦配合資料庫就可以達成，一般會對申請持保守態度，或是就是申請新型專利表明自己為該技術擁有人的措施。
其他參考：
CAFC對CLS Bank International v. Alice Corporation案判決：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/05/cafccls-bank-v-alice-corp.html
USPTO的先前回應：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/08/blog-post_6.html
Ron
資料參考：
Patently-O、CAFC判決原文
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1186.Opinion.1-22-2014.1.PDF
沒有留言:
張貼留言