本案例得到的結果是，只要請求項所載發明具有技術特徵，即便是電腦實現的商業方法，歐洲專利也並非不會接受其可專利性（patentability），並且，此類發明的申請案不應直接判定法定不予專利而不去檢索。
訴願案系爭申請案為歐洲申請案No.03708182.5（WO 03/075195 A2，T 0964/12 (Fulfillment coordination/SAP) of 1.7.2013），揭露一種公司內外訂單的供應鏈協調方法，這看來也是一種電腦實現的商業方法。系統包括透過網路串接的電腦系統，使用第一規則將訂單切割為一些工作封包，使用第二規則賦予工作封包至夥伴。
原申請時請求項1，顯然過於簡化，而且僅討論到第一規則、第二規則下的動作：
1. A method of coordinating the fulfillment of an order, the method comprising:
receiving an order;
using a first set of rules to split the order into one or more work packages necessary to fulfill the order; and
using a second set of rules to assign the work packages to one or more partners.
在歐洲專利局審查時，並未提出檢索報告，而直接認定此為商業方法的規則或方法，非為法定可專利的標的。核駁理由包括並無技術特徵，申請人則不同意，並指出其中技術特徵，更認為專利局應該提出檢索報告。
歐洲專利局審查部門（examining division）根據歐洲專利法52(2)(3)的規定，認為請求項所載以電腦實現的發明並無技術貢獻，並非是可專利的標的，也沒有技術檢索的必要。
Article 52
Patentable inventions
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
(3) Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
於是申請人上訴訴願委員會，並修正專利範圍，主要是補入一些技術特徵，避免又被認為是沒有技術貢獻，並要求進行檢索，這些意見將被上訴委員會共同審理。
修正後的請求項1與原來版本有很大的不同，顯然是為了併入所謂的技術貢獻：
1. A computer implemented data processing method of processing an order, the method comprising the steps of:
- providing a transport layer (503, 542) for transmitting a first message (515) from an order capturing application (505; 605) to an order fulfillment application (620; 625), wherein the transport layer is provided by an integration engine (503) and an integration directory (415; 542),
- capturing an order by means of the order capturing application (505; 605),
- generating the first message by the order capturing application (505; 605), the message body of the first message carrying an order document and an indication of a receiving organizational entity,
- transmitting the first message (515) from the order capturing application to the integration engine (503),
- determining by a logical routing framework (530) of the integration engine (503) the logical name of an order fulfillment coordination engine (603) from the indication of the receiving organizational entity using a routing model directory (540) comprised in the central integration directory (415; 542),
- storing by the integration engine (503) the logical name in the header of the first message,
- converting by a mapping framework (545) of the integration engine (503) in the message body (525) the format of the order document to the format of the order fulfillment coordination engine (603) using a mapping directory (547) comprised in the central integration directory (415; 542),
- determining by a physical address resolution framework (559) of the integration engine (503) the physical address of the order fulfillment coordination engine (603) from the logical name stored in the header of the first message, wherein the determination of the physical address is performed using a service directory (548) comprised in the central integration directory (415; 542)
- storing by the integration engine (503) the physical address in the header (520) of the first message (515),
- sending the first message (515) from the integration engine (503) to the order fulfillment coordination engine (603) using the physical address,
- processing the order document by the order fulfillment coordination engine (603) to provide at least a second message, the second message carrying an order fulfillment document (615) and an indication of the order fulfillment application (620, 625), and
- transmitting the second message from the order fulfillment coordination engine to the order fulfillment application (620; 625) by means of the transport layer.
訴願決定：
一些訴願決定的重點：
- 歐洲專利局審查部門（examining division）認為系爭申請案Claims 1, 7為法定不可專利標的，Claim 6不具新穎性，請求項所載發明也沒有技術貢獻
- 訴願委員會於是審理是否有需要進行檢索
- 訴願委員會參考另一訴願決定（T 1242/04 "Provision of product-specific data/MAN", OJ EPO 2007, 421），其中指出檢索取得先前技術為獲准專利程序的關鍵因素
- 檢索獲知的先前技術為審查專利性的依據
- 反之，如果認為已經有明顯的理由不予專利（notorious knowledge，Cf T 1924/07 "FA Information/BRIDGESTONE CORP."），則可以不用檢索而作出意見，其中也可能是因為沒有明確的技術細節而不用檢索（cf T 1411/08 "Pairing providers with consumers/IN-DEVELOPMENT"）
- 根據修正後權利範圍，訴願委員會同意上訴者此申請案具有技術特徵而應該進行審理其專利性
- 訴願委員會認為相關技術領域的人員從申請案中可知權利範圍並非僅為抽象概念的商業方法
- 訴願委員會從申請案中得知相關發明使用整合平台提供中介功能（middleware），讓SAP（本案申請人）的技術整合如同使用公開標準的非SAP系統，此技術並非輕易可以由電腦系統所推導
- 訴願委員會從說明書得知一些請求項中的步驟具有技術特徵，比如由 integration server 425、integration directory 415執行的一些步驟，也有一些是透過網路傳遞的資訊，這些即便是電腦實現，但具有技術性
- 因此，訴願委員會認為這些技術特徵的組合並非能夠被簡單判定為一般知識（notorious prior art），因此認為應該要作檢索後才能評斷其專利性。於是判斷歐洲專利局審查部門的決定是無效的（It also follows from the above analysis that the objections made in the decision under appeal against claims 1, 6 and 7 are not valid）
- 訴願委員會撤銷先前專利局決定，但也不是認為專利獲准，因為並未有通過檢索與審查
- 本案發回重審
結論如本文第一段。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言