先前技術不當組合導致不滿足103核駁的案例：In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
進步性（顯而易見性）答辯時，常常會考量前案的技術領域與目的，雖然技術、結構、方法可能與系爭案很像，但是如果前案技術在解決問題本質上的差異中「不會想到」、「沒有動機」透過簡單轉換達成系爭案所主張的專利發明所要達到的技術效果或目的，就不能說因為前案的揭露使得系爭案為顯而易見，這是常用，且為有用的答辯方式之一（證明先前技術反向教示teach away本發明）。
本案例討論就直指這個答辯的審查基準。
案例資訊：
專利申請號：application Serial No. 06/124,312, filed February 25, 1980
核駁引證案：US 1,175,948 (1916年專利)
本案例經USPTO以符合103核駁理由不予專利，經申請人上訴訴願委員會，仍以相同理由駁回，上訴CAFC，CAFC法官認為先前技術之組合因為不滿足其預期目的（intended purpose），視為不當組合，駁回核駁意見。
系爭案為一種血液過濾器組件，整體結構為從較寬的底部以及較尖細的頂部。當血液進入此過濾器底部時，將會導向旋轉向上的一個圓柱形過濾媒介，過濾器頂部設有一個排氣孔，經過濾後即向下流動，流回過濾器底部出口。此過濾器組件用於移除血液中顆粒物（如血凝塊、骨屑、組織）、氣體與外部物質（a shell 1, a bottom wall 2, blood inlet 3, blood outlet 4 and gas vent 5）。
Claim 1:
1. Blood filter assembly comprising:
a. a shell having a first top end and a second bottom end,
b. a blood inlet located in the region of said bottom end and opening into said bottom end,
c. a blood outlet located in the region of said bottom end,
d. a gas vent located in the region of said top end, and
e. a blood filter medium located between said blood inlet and said blood outlet,
said blood inlet being located and configured in a manner capable of directing incoming blood in a generally spiral path within said shell.
案件討論：
本案經USPTO審查，以及訴願決定後，認為系爭案Claims 1-3, 5-7為35U.S.C.103規定整體發明為顯而易見的技術，不予專利。
如上述簡介的系爭案的「血液過濾器」，圖示如下，主要組件有外殼1、底部壁2、血液入口3、血液出口4、排氣口5、過濾器6、過濾核7，整體組件可以同時讓血液進、血液出。
先前技術為早於1916年的專利US 1,175,948，是一種「液體過濾器」，其主要目的是過濾油品中的灰塵、水氣，也有出口5與入口4，很明顯就是以下圖示裝置的左右側的開口。
經比較系爭案與引證案，功能相近，因為這個初步印象讓專利審查時被認為是顯而易見。但是因為過濾的對象不同，在細節結構上仍有差異，如引證案裝置內明顯有連續螺紋，可以讓經過的液體旋轉，可以導引不同的物質，可以使油水分離，異物因為重力而降至特定空間，血液過濾與過濾油的差異表現出這些結構上的設計差異，至少出入口的設計不同，這些差異讓CAFC法院有了不同的意見。
案件經上訴CAFC，CAFC法官認為訴願委員會並未建立顯而易見核駁意見的初步印象（prima facie），認為判斷顯而易見時，應以整體來看系爭案是否就是先前技術所教示的改變？
就本案來說，從出入口來看，應判斷是否過濾血液的裝置為簡單將過濾油的先前技術裝置「顛倒」而成？
根據判決文，法官判斷先前技術"French"需要利用「重力/地心引力」將灰塵、水與油分離，就此重力的原因，相關技術人員並不會、沒有動機將裝置「顛倒」使用，除非先前技術有教示這個改變，否則先前技術不會讓這個修改為顯而易見。
"Therefore, it is not seen that French would have provided any motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the French apparatus in an upside down orientation. The mere fact that the prior art could be so modified would not have made the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification."
是否French教示系爭案所載發明的判斷包括：
1) 如果將French裝置上下顛倒，將無法如其預期地運作。
2) French處理的液體流動方式不同，包括在區域9內截留油，而水則流出出口5。
3) French不要的灰塵會留在殼體與過濾器之間，除非堵塞而被引到別處。
4) 因為以上理由，French反向教示（teach away）修改成為系爭案所稱發明。
"Indeed, if the French apparatus were turned upside down, it would be rendered inoperable for its intended purpose. The gasoline to be filtered would be trapped in pocket 9, and the water French seeks to separate would flow freely out of the outlet 5. Further, unwanted dirt would build up in the space between the wall of shell 1 and screen 21, so that, in time, screen 21 would become clogged unless a drain valve, such as pet-cock 13, were re-introduced at the new "bottom" of the apparatus. See In re Schulpen, 390 F.2d 1009, 1013, 157 USPQ 52, 55 (CCPA 1968). In effect, French teaches away from the board's proposed modification."
因為訴願決定並未建立顯而易見的初步印象（prima facie case of obviousness），駁回決定，最後專利獲准：US 4,490,254。
[相關法條]
MPEP 2143.01 規範滿足103核駁理由中引證前案組合的動機與建議，其中第5段規範如果審查意見中提出修改引證前案並不滿足其預期目的，前案就沒有所稱修改的建議與動機。這裡的修改應可延伸到「引證案的組合」，如果引證案的組合（對各案而言是一種修改）不滿足原技術的預期目的，也就是不當的組合（improper combination）。
If proposed modification would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 USPQ 1125 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (Claimed device was a blood filter assembly for use during medical procedures wherein both the inlet and outlet for the blood were located at the bottom end of the filter assembly, and wherein a gas vent was present at the top of the filter assembly. The prior art reference taught a liquid strainer for removing dirt and water from gasoline and other light oils wherein the inlet and outlet were at the top of the device, and wherein a pet-cock (stopcock) was located at the bottom of the device for periodically removing the collected dirt and water. The reference further taught that the separation is assisted by gravity. The Board concluded the claims were prima facie obvious, reasoning that it would have been obvious to turn the reference device upside down. The court reversed, finding that if the prior art device was turned upside down it would be inoperable for its intended purpose because the gasoline to be filtered would be trapped at the top, the water and heavier oils sought to be separated would flow out of the outlet instead of the purified gasoline, and the screen would become clogged.).
...判決文：
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-gordon-11
本部落格相關MPEP 2143討論：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/08/mpep-2143.html（KSR判例準則）
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/05/mpep-214301teach-away.html（teach away）
編按：每篇相關的文章撰寫的時間前後差異可能達一兩年，會導致對同一用語有不同的翻譯，不容易統一，還請見諒。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言