最近手邊美國軟體專利接獲引用Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International最高法院意見的審查意見漸多（日後會慢慢分享），當審查委員企圖試探有這個問題時，一般的作法就是解釋、澄清或是透過修正將有意義、有貢獻的硬體加入來回應。
但如果是純粹的軟體（software per se），回應上的困難度就高了。在此案例Planet Bingo v. VKGS (Fed. Cir. 2014)中，專利申請案是一個賓果遊戲，在這樣熟悉的遊戲中會有何可專利的特徵，好奇的話，就進來看看。
這個專利申請案所提到的發明讓玩遊戲者可以自行選擇賓果遊戲的號碼，這也不是新鮮事，不過在電腦遊戲中，特別是遊戲機上，就有許多安全性的考量，避免因為可以自行選擇而產生弊端，顯然專利特徵就在細節裡。
相關業者如VKGS與Planet Bingo：
vs.
系爭專利有US6,398,646與US6,656,045，揭露一個普通的電腦系統，載入一個賓果遊戲，遊戲讓每個玩家連結著自己選擇的數字，並且儲存在系統中，因此玩家可以找到過去玩的數字，而不用重新選擇。這有點不同，是因為一般玩賓果這種"靠運氣"的遊戲常常不在意數字的擺法，或是直接使用系統給的隨機的號碼。結果這個發明提供使用者可以找到自己過去選擇的數字排列。
US6,398,646
這件案子看來，雖是已經獲准的專利（買來的），但是案件是西元2000年申請的，所遇到的困難在這10多年來與日俱增，特別是美國專利法第101條不可專利性的阻礙。
案例緣起侵權訴訟，被告自然會提出專利無效的motion，隨著地方法院認為專利無效後，專利權人上訴，仍判決專利無效。從系爭專利獲准且為爭議之一的請求項1來看，這個遊戲方法刻意連結到"computer, CPU, memory"等硬體上，但是否這個電腦系統對技術產生有意義的貢獻？顯然CAFC法官不買單，即便專利權人強調其中科技的成份，這個技術仍是抽象概念。
(US6,398,646)
1. A system for managing a game of Bingo which comprises:
(a) a computer with a central processing unit (CPU) and with a memory and with a printer connected to the CPU;
(b) an input and output terminal connected to the CPU and memory of the computer; and
(c) a program in the computer enabling:
(i) input of at least two sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by a player to be played in at least one selected game of Bingo in a future period of time;
(ii) storage of the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player as a group in the memory of the computer;
(iii) assignment by the computer of a player identifier unique to the player for the group having the sets of Bingo numbers which are preselected by the player wherein the player identifier is assigned to the group for multiple sessions of Bingo;
(iv) retrieval of the group using the player identifier;
(v) selection from the group by the player of at least one of the sets of Bingo numbers preselected by the player and stored in the memory of the computer as the group for play in a selected game of Bingo in a specific session of Bingo wherein a number of sets of Bingo numbers selected for play in the selected game of Bingo is less than a total number of sets of Bingo numbers in the group;
(vi) addition by the computer of a control number for each set of Bingo numbers selected for play in the selected game of Bingo;
(vii) output of a receipt with the control number, the set of Bingo numbers which is preselected and selected by the player, a price for the set of Bingo numbers which is preselected, a date of the game of Bingo and optionally a computer identification number; and
(viii) output for verification of a winning set of Bingo numbers by means of the control number which is input into the computer by a manager of the game of Bingo.
其實從專利範圍來看，發明人已經揭露這個技術是人類活動，比如Claim 1中充斥著"player"這個角色，還有"manager"，這件專利技術面對的不是創新或是101字面上可專利標的的問題，而是挑戰了最新最高法院Alice v. CLS Bank的判例中屏除自然律、自然現象與抽象概念發明的可專利性。
CAFC法官認定專利請求項中的步驟（如賓果號碼選擇、儲存、取得、查詢中獎等）為抽象概念，全面認定系爭專利為人類心智活動，技術並無新穎之處，更沒有可專利性。
引用一些有意思的意見：
法官來自CLS Bank案的意見：
"A patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. §101. The Supreme Court has “long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”"
“Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”
法官也提到了Bilski判例的審查標準，認為這件專利都不符合這些判例的可專利標準：
"Moreover, the claims here are similar to the claims at issue in Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S.Ct. 3218 (2010), and Alice, 134 S. Ct. 2347, which the Supreme Court held were directed to
“abstract ideas.” "
（重點）法官判斷本案例中系爭專利可專利性時，認為，即便請求項擺入一些硬體特徵，不過，這些加入的東西僅為一般目的電腦所實現的抽象概念，並未帶來可專利的特徵：
“If a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implement’ an abstract idea ‘on. . .a computer,’. . .that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301). In this case,the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
法官在一連串分析後，雖認為系爭專利不具可專利性，但其實並未排除"抽象概念"的可專利性，只要技術包括了進步特徵而能足夠轉換抽象概念為可專利技術，就為可專利性標的：
"Abstract ideas may still be patent-eligible if they contain an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289,1294,1298 (2012)). "
最後判決系爭專利不符美國專利法第101條規定，專利無效。
後語：
這件專利在台灣應該也不會獲准，專利屬於人類心智活動，直接用非利用自然法則的創作而核駁『...科學原理或數學方法、遊戲或運動之規則或方法等人為之規則、方法或計畫，或其他必須藉助人類推理力、記憶力等心智活動始能執行之方法或計畫，該發明本身不具有技術性，不符合發明之定義...』（中華民國審查基準第二篇）。
判決原文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/13-1663.Opinion.8-22-2014.1.PDF
參考資料：
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2014/08/encompasses-scientific-technological.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言