訴願號：T 1195/09
訴願決定：5/27/2015
系爭專利申請號：07120344.2
系爭專利公開號：1923795
專利申請人：Novell, Inc.
相關歐洲專利法：EPC Art. 56（進步性）, 123(2)（修正）
系爭專利揭露一種可以擴展標記語言（extensible markup language，XML）作為可執行認證的技術。本案例緣起系爭專利在歐洲專利局審查時被核駁，理由是進步性不足，引證前案都不是專利案，是先前技術文獻，這在軟體業界來說是頗為正常。經歐洲專利局核駁後，申請人提出訴願。
D1: Horn, C., "Binary XML Transfer using Direct Compilation Techniques", Experience Report and Position Paper W3C Workshop on Binary Interchange of XML Information Item Sets, Santa Clara, CA, USA, 24 September 2003, Internet extracted: 11 March 2008;
D2: Geuer-Pollmann, C., "XML Pool Encryption", Proceedings of the ACM Workshop on XML Security 2002, Fairfax, VA, USA, 22 November 2002.
歐洲專利修正規定可以參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/04/blog-post_16.html
其中EPC Art. 123(2)規範申請人於修正時不得超出原申請時揭露內容。
EPC Art.123 AMENDMENTS
(1) The European patent application or European patent may be amended in proceedings before the European Patent Office, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. In any event, the applicant shall be given at least one opportunity to amend the application of his own volition.
(2) The European patent application or European patent may not be amended in such a way that it contains subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application as filed.
(3) The European patent may not be amended in such a way as to extend the protection it confers.
在本案例中，在歐洲專利局審查時，認為專利範圍中幾個特徵並未無歧異見於原申請案說明書，相關特徵如：
(a) "acquiring authentication logic",
(b) verification of the identity of "the author or the distributor of the XML executable",
(c) "acquiring policy logic",
(d) embedding within the executable "said authentication logic and said policy logic", and
(e) enforcing "access rights to at least some components".
系爭專利請求項1的修正演變：
11/9/2007：
9/1/2008：
12/17/2008：
另有一獨立項Claim 13：
Independent claim 13 defines a computer system comprising corresponding means for performing each of the steps of the process of claim 1.
另有獨立項Claim 20（很有歐洲的味道）：
Independent claim 20 defines "A computer program, which when executing on a computer or computer network, performs the method of any one of claims 1 to 12".
歐洲專利局對於系爭專利請求項中有技術特徵並未見於原說明書內容的理由是說明書並未提出足以實現以上特徵(a)～(e)的技術細節，不符歐洲專利法EPC Art. 83的揭露規定。
這部分可參考本部落格先前討論：
揭露足夠解決問題的技術特徵非常重要（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/06/blog-post.html）
EPC 83規範發明說明內容（Claims）應揭露足夠清楚與完整而使得相關技術人員可以據以實施
Article 83
Disclosure of the invention
The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.
除系爭專利面對先前技術有進步性不足的問題外，針對本案例有關「修正」的審查意見，訴願委員認為系爭專利請求項所載的技術特徵中，有幾點確實並未明確為原說明書內所支撐，指出以上幾點中的(a)(c)(e)已經超出原說明書內容。
即便申請人答辯指出說明書已經揭露以上被質疑的幾點特徵的內容，但是訴願委員仍是認為並沒有內容等同（equate）或暗示（imply）請求項範圍的幾項特徵，不符EPC Art. 123(2)修正規定，駁回申請人意見。
以上討論忽略本案例進步性的議題，訴願決定：系爭專利不具進步性。
訴願決定文（備份）：
https://app.box.com/s/kvjzhh9cqe3cbqmpe4x62sr3xe0fn00a
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言