"Alice v. CLS Bank"相關101核駁理由案例討論

"Alice v. CLS Bank"算是一個影響頗大的判例，使得許多僅用一般電腦執行的軟體專利無法專利，特別是商業方法本身。

一些先前文章：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank.html（最高法院意見）
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/101-alice-corp-v-cls-bank.html （USPTO審查方針）
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/05/cafccls-bank-v-alice-corp.html（CAFC的意見）

根據一些國外部落格的報導，甚至在最高法院對Alice v. CLS Bank作出決定後，USPTO審查委員還撤銷了一些核准通知（notices of allowance），甚至在申請人已經繳付領證費，都被因為發明為不可專利標的被撤銷，在OA中增加了Alice的判例描述與核駁理由。

這裡討論兩件專利案。

CAFC對Alice v. CLS Bank的判決之前
接獲第一次審查意見時，時間點在2012年1月30日，當時還沒有CAFC對Alice v. CLS Bank的案件，所以就以當時的基準（如Bilski判例）作為是否發明為可專利標的的判斷基準，軟體相關發明的請求項大約只要連結到特定硬體（tied to machine）或是以特定解決方案將不可專利的事物轉換成可專利的標的（transformation），應可克服相關101核駁意見。

當時的實務上（不少案子是這樣獲准專利的），可以在軟體方法中加入「computer-implemented」以及相關描述，比如引入processor, memory等，作為修正與答辯方向。

然後，這樣的修正仍是不被接受，當時還是2012年，審查委員核駁理由還是包括了發明不符101的可專利標的的核駁理由。之後修正再補入相關硬體描述，這樣頗為「文意」主義。

甚至，USPTO審查委員在發出獲准專利通知（notice of allowance）時，還依照職權協助修正了一些附屬請求項的前言部分，加入了「computer-implemented method...」。顯然，審查委員當時（至少這件）堅信這樣的修正是可以專利的！



Alice v. CLS Bank之後（CAFC）
但是這樣文意上的加入computer的時光不長，到了2013年CAFC對Alice v. CLS Bank的判決（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/05/cafccls-bank-v-alice-corp.html）時，推翻了上述僅以限縮到一般電腦就可以克服101核駁理由的審查標準，CAFC的標準如下：

『Applying the above considerations to assess the patent eligibility of the specific computer-implemented claims at issue in this appeal, we conclude that the district court correctly held that the asserted claims drawn to methods, computer-readable media, and systems are
not patent eligible and are hence invalid under § 101.』

CONCLUSION
『As described, we agree with the district court and conclude that the asserted method, computer-readable medium, and system claims of Alice’s ’479, ’510, ’720, and ’375 patents are invalid under § 101 for failure to recite patent-eligible subject matter.』

Alice v. CLS Bank之後（Supreme Court）
美國最高法院接著是確認CAFC的決定：抽象概念（非採用自然法則）的技術若僅使用一般目的的電腦，並不能轉換為可專利的發明。
The patents at issue in this case disclose a computer-implemented scheme for mitigating “settlement risk” (i.e.,the risk that only one party to a financial transaction will pay what it owes) by using a third-party intermediary. The question presented is whether these claims are patent eligible under 35 U. S. C. §101, or are instead drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea. We hold that the claims at issue are drawn to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and that merely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. We therefore affirm the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

案例（CBM2013-­00024）
系爭專利：US8095413

列舉Claim 1，其中界定一種管理多人協同活動的系統，提供一圖形使用者介面作為協同作業的環境，讓使用者可以共同在其中進行存取、編輯、刪除等活動。這顯然是個電腦資訊的方法，請求項中也盡力與processor, storage等硬體元件連結。
1. A system for supporting management of a collaborative activity by persons involved therein, the persons not being specialists in information technology, the system being implemented using a processor and a storage device accessible to the processor, and the system comprising:

a representation of a model of the collaborative activity in the storage device, the model of the collaborative activity including model entities, the model entities providing access to information concerning the collaborative activity, being organized into a plurality of hierarchies having a plurality of types, and a given model entity being capable of simultaneously belonging to a hierarchy having one of the types and a hierarchy having another of the types; and

said processor being configured to provide a graphical user interface to a person of the persons for providing outputs to the person and responding to inputs from the person by performing operations on a model entity as limited by a type of access which the person has to the model entity, the operations including controlling access to the model entity, creating, modifying, and/or deleting the model entity, assigning the model entity to a location in a hierarchy, accessing and/or modifying the information concerning the collaborative activity via the model entity, viewing model entities as ordered by a hierarchy to which the entities belong, and viewing model entities as ordered by a value in the information concerning the collaborative activity to which the entities give access.

異議審查中除了102的議題外，一半以上的篇幅圍繞在Bilski, Mayo, Alice等高等法院有關101的判例討論上。

Alice判例為主要依據，PTAB逐步判斷的邏輯可以從審決文看出：
第一步：

第二步：

認為即便連結了處理器與儲存器，這都是僅執行抽象概念的電腦，無法轉為可專利標的：

PTAB同意訴願人已經證明系爭專利不具可專利性。

結論：


終究，這類沒有特殊硬體的"純"軟體發明難以認定為可專利標的。

後語
其實Alice v. CLS Bank的決定會讓軟體專利很難核准，也不容易說服審查意見，所以在限縮軟體相關發明的請求項範圍時，能夠增加有意義的硬體或是透過答辯強調發明並非僅是抽象概念，也非僅採用一般目的的電腦實現的發明。當然，這些答辯意見也要顯得有意義。

資料參考：
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/07/25/alice-v-cls-reality-pto-pulling-back-notices-of-allowance/id=50529/

Ron