筆記
法定重複專利（statutory double patenting）是指「一樣（the same）」的發明有兩件專利/申請案，這不合法，就我們的語言是說「先申請主義」，相同發明，以在前申請的案子獲得專利。
「重複專利」的樣貌可以參考MPEP804，主要分為兩種：
- 一樣的發明（same invention），這類法定重複專利（statutory double patenting），核駁理由依據35 U.S.C. 101法定不予專利。這類重複專利核駁不能以終權聲明（terminal disclaimer）克服。
35 U.S.C. 101 Inventions patentable.
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. - 另一種為非法定重複專利（non-statutory double patenting），前後專利之間沒有可專利性的差異（not patentably distinguishing），而為了防止不當延長專利期限，於是會作出這類（相同申請人）非法定重複專利核駁理由。這類重複專利核駁可以終權聲明克服。在某些情況下可稱為顯而易知的重複專利（obviousness-type double patenting）。
(1) one-way determination of obviousness（In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1438, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998)）
如果"在後專利申請案"與另一在前或同日申請案為同一發明（指申請專利範圍）的情況下，就用one-way determination of obviousness解決這個問題，也就是判斷是否請求項所界定的專利範圍與另一在前或同日申請案之間並無明顯差異（obvious variation）。
"If the application at issue is the later filed application or both are filed on the same day, only a one-way determination of obviousness is needed in resolving the issue of double patenting, i.e., whether the invention defined in a claim in the application would have been anticipated by, an obvious variation of, the invention defined in a claim in the patent."
此"單向"顯而易見判斷原則是為了避免前後專利案的不同專利範圍在沒有實質差異時有不當延長專利權的問題（unjustified timewise extension），這類前後專利案，在後者會以顯而易見形式的重複專利理由（obvious-type double patenting）核駁。
值得一提的是，如果"在前申請案"因為較晚被審查，審查時已知有另一沒有實質差異專利範圍的"在後申請案"（同一申請人/發明人/合約），此時，專利審查委員仍會對"在前申請案"提出重複專利（專利範圍衝突）的暫時性核駁（provisionally double patenting rejection），直到此衝突被解決。
(2) two-way determination of obviousness（In re Berg, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998)）
如果在有重複專利疑慮卻又不得不以兩個專利申請案進行的"在後專利申請案"被獲准而可能取得不當延長時間的專利權，此時可以雙向顯而易見判斷原則檢驗。
"While acknowledging that allowance of the claims in the earlier filed application would result in the timewise extension of an invention claimed in the patent, the court was of the view that the extension was justified under the circumstances in this case, indicating that a double patenting rejection would be proper only if the claimed inventions were obvious over each other — a two-way obviousness determination."
這類前後專利之間可以一般顯而易見性的進步性判斷原則，如Graham v. John Deere判斷，經判斷為彼此之間具有顯而易見的差異（obvious variation），顯然之間為obvious-type double patenting；如果兩案發明之間之間並非是顯而易見差異，沒有重複專利的問題，也就是不能以不當延長專利期限而要求提出終權聲明。
MPEP 2143
一些補充：
- Terminal Disclaimer（TD，終權聲明）是解決同一申請人/發明人前後專利案遭遇non-statutory double patenting核駁理由時的一般解決方案。
- 至少有兩個理由要以終權聲明（TD）克服非法定重複專利核駁理由，第一，雖然基於某一母案的延續案專利（CA, CIP, DIV）期限本來就是以母案為計算基準，但是因為美國專利有專利期限補償（PTA，35USC154），有些甚至會補償好幾年，使得延續案不見得會隨著母案到期日一起到期，所以如果延續案與母案有非法定重複專利的問題，仍應提出TD，避免不當延長專利期限。第二，一旦彼此之間沒有足夠專利性區隔的專利權之後由不同人/或對不同方主張專利權，如侵權訴訟、授權等，會產生多重困擾，因此這些專利權之間若已曾主張TD，至少可以避免不當重複專利權行使。
- 暫時性重複專利核駁（provisional statutory double patenting rejection）是因為審查委員發現有兩件（或多件）審查中專利申請案（同一申請人/發明人...）有重複專利的問題，於是作出暫時性重複專利核駁，直到其中一件申請案核准後，就成為一般重複專利的核駁，包括相同發明、沒有專利性差異的發明。
法條參考：
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s804.html
MPEP804 Definition of Double Patenting
...
There are generally two types of double patenting rejections. One is the “same invention” type double patenting rejection based on 35 U.S.C. 101 which states in the singular that an inventor “may obtain a patent.” The second is the “nonstatutory-type” double patenting rejection based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy and which is primarily intended to prevent prolongation of the patent term by prohibiting claims in a second patent not patentably distinguishing from claims in a first patent. Nonstatutory double patenting includes rejections based on either a one-way determination of obviousness or a two-way determination of obviousness. Nonstatutory double patenting could include a rejection which is not the usual “obviousness-type” double patenting rejection. This type of double patenting rejection is rare and is limited to the particular facts of the case. In re Schneller, 397 F.2d 350, 158 USPQ 210 (CCPA 1968).
...
2. Statutory Double Patenting Rejections (35 U.S.C. 101)
A terminal disclaimer cannot be filed to obviate a statutory double patenting rejection.
If a “provisional” statutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in one of the applications (but not both), the examiner should withdraw the rejection in that application and permit that application to issue as a patent, thereby converting the “provisional” double patenting rejection in the other application into a double patenting rejection when the application issues as a patent.
If a “provisional” statutory double patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining in both applications, the examiner should withdraw that rejection in the application with the earlier filing date and permit that application to issue as a patent. If both applications were filed on the same day, the applicant should be given an opportunity to elect which of the two should be allowed. In either situation, the examiner should maintain the double patenting rejection in the other application as a “provisional” double patenting rejection, which will be converted into a double patenting rejection when one application issues as a patent.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言