2014年12月4日 星期四

引用不同類別請求項會被認為是預期的用途 - MPEP 2114, 2115討論(about Claims)

筆記

MPEP 2114與MPEP 2115是討論如何解釋採用功能性語言的專利範圍的審查標準,重要!

MPEP 2114
I. 第一段提到「裝置」請求項需要與先前技術有結構上的差異(APPARATUS CLAIMS MUST BE STRUCTURALLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PRIOR ART)。

II. 第二段則是描述運作裝置的方法不會與先前技術區隔(MANNER OF OPERATING THE DEVICE DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE APPARATUS CLAIM FROM THE PRIOR ART)

A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.


在多樣性佈局的專利範圍中常見有一項主要範圍,如一個方法,之後界定出「執行此方法的裝置」、「執行此方法的系統」等,而此專利獲准仍是端賴這個方法是否有具有專利性而定;同樣地,若有一裝置範圍為主要發明,而再以其他範圍界定「該裝置的運作方法」、「具有該裝置的系統」等是否可獲准專利,仍是看該裝置是否具有專利性。

如果先前技術教示了裝置請求項所揭露的結構特徵,另一項請求項界定了此裝置範圍預期要做的事(方法),這事不會使得該項裝置區隔先前技術,也就是如果裝置範圍不能與先前技術區隔,其相關方法也不能。

III. 第三段提到先前技術的裝置執行所有裝置請求項所載的功能,但仍非揭露了該發明(A PRIOR ART DEVICE CAN PERFORM ALL THE FUNCTIONS OF THE APPARATUS CLAIM AND STILL NOT ANTICIPATE THE CLAIM)

IV. 第四段討論電腦實現的功能請求項如何與先前技術區隔(DETERMINING WHETHER A COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED FUNCTIONAL CLAIM LIMITATION IS PATENTABLE OVER THE PRIOR ART UNDER 35 U.S.C. 102 AND 103)

MPEP 2115
MATERIAL OR ARTICLE WORKED UPON DOES NOT LIMIT APPARATUS CLAIMS

其中幾個重點:
  1. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” 
  2. Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.”
  3. Note that this line of cases is limited to claims directed to machinery which works upon an article or material in its intended use. It does not apply to product claims or kit claims (i.e., claims directed to a plurality of articles grouped together as a kit).
裝置預期的運作的描述對判斷裝置的專利性(patentability)沒有幫助;在主張範圍的結構加入的材料或物品不會使得請求項具有專利性;將請求項所界定機械以其預期的用途運作在材料或是物品上,並非是產品請求項或是相關組合範圍。

Ron

沒有留言: