案件資訊：
訴願編號：T 0410/96
系爭專利申請號：89480094.5；公開號：0349462
系爭專利名稱：Method of document definition utilizing a list directed expression architecture（IBM）
這是一件專利答辯的訴願案，歐洲審查結果是駁回claim 6，claims 1-5可核准，系爭專利關於透過指出文件元件與資料流的關係而定義文件結構的技術。
請求項1：
"A method of defining the structure of a multi-element entity within a data stream, said method comprising data processing system implemented steps of:
creating a plurality of tabular specifications, each of said tabular specifications including a plurality of elements;
specifying once for each of said plurality of tabular specifications the logical relationship between all of said plurality of elements contained therein and at least one other element contained therein;
storing said specified logical relationship in association with each of said plurality of tabular
specifications;
accessing said plurality of tabular specifications and said associated specified logical relationships utilizing a reference; and
defining the structure of a multi-element entity within a data stream by reference to said accessed plurality of tabular specifications and associated specified logical relationships."
請求項6：
"Data processing system comprising means for carrying out the steps of the method according to anyone of the claims 1 to 5."
對於請求項6的寫法，這是一個獨立請求項，界定一個資料處理系統，其中包括實現如前述請求項1至5之任一的手段，但此範圍雖引用了在前被核准的範圍，但是卻被認為沒有定義出所有必要元件，產生是否授予專利的法律問題。
"The examining division refused the application on the ground that such a claim was an independent claim and must therefore define all the "essential features" of the invention, Article 84 and Rule 29(1) and (3) EPC, but failed to do so."
以下是訴願委員會對於這類「系統引用方法項」的撰寫方式（short formulation）的態度，並摘要節錄重點：
這裡提到裝置請求項包括方法特徵的寫法，在歐洲擴大訴願委員會（Enlarged Board）案例中指出，這類寫法在多樣可能專利範圍的形式中沒有具體邊界，並提到一個常用案例，就是方法特徵執行在一般目的的電腦中，在相關案例中，這樣"混合式"寫法應整體來看。
[手段功能用語]
此時涉及專利範圍中採用了「means-plus-function」，就解釋上，應採用"adapted to"，也就是整句解釋來可以為適用實現方法提供的功能的手段的資料處理系統。但是，目前請求項6似乎缺少執行這些步驟的必要元件。
"Present claim 6, however, does not include as integers the explicit means for carrying out each processing step, but specifies only "means for carrying out the steps of the method according to anyone of claims 1 to 5". This is hereinafter referred to as the "short formulation"."
[引用形式獨立項]
不過，訴願決定中也提到先前案例支持這類專利範圍在所引用的方法項為可核准的情況下，相關系統或裝置也為可核准範圍。
這樣的寫法在歐洲是被允許的，訴願決定指出Rule 29(4)，但是現行細則是43(4)，且43(3)指出描述有必要特徵的請求項可以跟隨有一或多個有關特定實施例的請求項（附屬項）：
Rule 43 Form and content of claims
(3) Any claim stating the essential features of an invention may be followed by one or more
claims concerning particular embodiments of that invention.
(4) Any claim which includes all the features of any other claim (dependent claim) shall contain,
if possible at the beginning, a reference to the other claim and then state the additional features. A dependent claim directly referring to another dependent claim shall also be admissible. All dependent claims referring back to a single previous claim, and all dependent claims referring back to several previous claims, shall be grouped together to the extent and in the most appropriate way possible.
[專利明確性]
在EPC Article 84，卻要求每項範圍（獨立項）應包括所有實現發明的必要特徵。
Article 84 Claims
The claims shall define the matter for which protection is sought. They shall be clear and concise and be supported by the description.
這樣，就產生某種不明確的地方，當請求項6使用了"means for"，即便被引用的範圍為可核准，但是模糊的地方是：是一個手段實現這些步驟，還是多個手段實現這些步驟？
關於這個法律問題，甚至涉及將來侵權判斷時如何界定此資料處理系統的問題，訴願委員會認為，在符合EPC 84的規定下，引用可核准的方法範圍的請求項6為可核准。但此法律問題，暫時被擱置，發回審查機關（本案之後尚未被追蹤）。
訴願決定：
專利為可核准，但是問題仍被擱置，發回重審。
my two cents:
在此案例中，訴願委員會似乎在玩一些文字遊戲，法律問題大概就是這樣以文義作為解釋基礎。
本案例請求項6"Data processing system comprising means for carrying out the steps of the method according to anyone of the claims 1 to 5."，這常見於美國專利實務的寫法（申請人是IBM），就是改變專利標的，但是內容直指同一個技術特徵，不過，在我知道的方式下，引用相關方法的裝置範圍（除了電腦可讀取儲存媒體的標的以外），最保險的方式仍是應該交待「裝置」或「系統」的必要元件，例如處理器、記憶體、鍵盤與滑鼠之類的。
訴願決定備份：
https://app.box.com/s/1hxcdf883juqwdabriy4dg8ck5ue2tnz
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言