案件資訊：
專利申請人：Lansing Bagnall Ltd.
系爭專利：European patent application No. 78300585.3
涉及法條：EPC Articles 54(2), 69(1), 78(1)(3), 84, 97(1), 123(2), 138(1)(c)(2), 164(1)(2)
其中EPC第69條規定：(1)歐洲專利保護範圍係以權利要求項定義，並以說明書與圖式解釋專利範圍。(2)歐洲專利授予的保護範圍應以最新公告（修正後）的請求項範圍為準，然而，經異議程序的修正範圍應追溯至授予專利時。第123條規定修正不得超出原申請時內容。
[法條參考]
EPC Article 69 Extent of protection
(1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the terms of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims.
(2) For the period up to grant of the European patent, the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application shall be determined by the latest filed claims contained in the publication under Article 93. However, the European patent as granted or as amended in opposition proceedings shall determine retroactively the protection conferred by the European patent application, in so far as such protection is not thereby extended.
EPC Article 97 Refusal or grant
(1) The Examining Division shall refuse a European patent application if it is of the opinion that such application or the invention to which it relates does not meet the requirements of this Convention, except where a different sanction is provided for by this Convention.
...
EPC Article 123 Amendments
(1) The conditions under which a European patent application or a European patent may be amended in proceedings before the European Patent Office are laid down in the Implementing Regulations. In any case, an applicant shall be allowed at least one opportunity of amending the description, claims and drawings of his own volition.
(2) A European patent application or a 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 claims of the European patent may not be amended during opposition proceedings in such a way as to extend the protection conferred.
Rule 27 Content of the description
(1)The description shall:
(a) specify the technical field to which the invention relates;
(b) indicate the background art which, as far as known to the applicant, can be regarded as useful for understanding the invention, for drawing up the European search report and for the examination, and, preferably, cite the documents reflecting such art;
(c) disclose the invention, as claimed, in such terms that the technical problem (even if not expressly stated as such) and its solution can be understood, and state any advantageous effects of the invention with reference to the background art;
(d) briefly describe the figures in the drawings, if any;
(e) describe in detail at least one way of carrying out the invention claimed using examples where appropriate and referring to the drawings, if any;
(f) indicate explicitly, when it is not obvious from the description or nature of the invention, the way in which the invention is capable of exploitation in industry.
案件討論：
系爭專利關於一種車用直流馬達的控制電路。本案在審理過程中，曾經根據歐洲檢索報告提出修正，這個修正是提出新的請求項取代原來的請求項。接著進入審查階段，當審查委員表示專利具有專利性（可獲准）時，要求申請人描述「相對於檢索報告中某法文專利說明書為代表的習知技術的優點」。
申請人兩次拒絕依照專利局的意見修正。
即便專利局似乎釋出善意認為依照此修正就會核准專利，但是，系爭案申請人拒絕歐洲專利局審查委員的要求，認為系爭案說明書已經包括背景技術的參考而能充分瞭解專利發明，也包括發明相對於先前技術的優點。申請人提出說明，認為加入如前述法文說明書內容（未揭示在原申請時說明書內）會產生違反專利法第123(2)條所稱新增內容的規定。
之後，歐洲專利審查局發出意見表示，申請人對EPC 123(2)規定的理解有誤，引用審查基準，認為前述法文專利說明書前案與系爭案極度相關，應該引用在說明書中以說明系爭案所揭露的電路的優點。審查局表示如果不符這個意見，申請案將被核駁。
申請人回應此審查意見，認為在說明書中補充背景技術是一個"喜好"，卻不是"強制義務"。表示，此先前技術已經載於審查報告，本發明沒有必要藉這個修正來區隔先前技術。
申請人提出訴願。
專利申請人對歐洲訴願委員會要確認兩個議題：(1)根據歐洲專利Rule 27(1)(c) EPC，是否應（根據專利局要求）將適當的先前技術清楚表明在專利說明書先前技術中；(2)是否可以因為拒絕審查局要求而核駁專利申請案。
其中隱含的爭議是，除了是否需要符合專利審查員要求將他認為適當的先前技術補入說明書的議題之外，是否可以因為不符前述Rule 27 EPC說明書內容規定而成為駁回專利請案的理由？
訴願中有些原則性的結論，並不一定說明申請人贏了這個爭議：
申請人有義務修正說明書內容使得所修正的請求項發明與解決問題可以被理解！
"In the present case, the appellants are obliged to amend the description so that it discloses the invention as claimed in the amended claims in such terms that the technical problem and its solution can be understood. "
訴願委員會認為，在情況需要下，說明書應該被修正而支持修正後專利範圍。
"In the opinion of the Board, it is clearly necessary in the circumstances of the case that the description should be amended so that it provides support for the amended claims, in conformity with Article 84 EPC. The amended description must comply with Rule 27 EPC for that purpose."
只要審查部門沒錯，訴願委員會不會翻盤。
"In all the circumstances, the Board must uphold the decision of the Examining Division insofar as it held that the European patent application did not comply with Rule 27 EPC in two stated respects."
訴願決定：
歐洲專利申請案不應因為專利局要求申請人提出說明書修正而被核駁！發回重審。也就是，歐洲訴願決定表示專利局修正說明書的要求並非強制，不能因此核駁專利申請案。
結論：
- 在一般情況下，歐洲專利申請案應滿足施行細則，若否，則應駁回專利申請案。
- 有關「background art」用語如同「prior art」。
- 經歐洲檢索報告或審查意見後的修正範圍，要被申請時專利說明書支持，若說明書有修正，以修正版為主。
- EPC Rule 27要求專利發明以及優點可以從說明書內容而被公眾理解。
- 相對於EPC 123(2)說明書不能修改超過申請時內容的規定，"僅"在說明書中加入先前技術參考不能被解釋為專利標的的添加；加入的先前技術所產生發明優點的討論"也不必然"違反專利法，而是以實際的用語與當時情境為準。（意思就是，在專利申請提出後補充習知技術內容而加強本案發明特點，這不一定不行！）
後語：
本案例（T 0011/82）表示不一定要符合專利局對於說明書修正的要求，因為對於修正法規的理解不一，本案例被多次引用在其他訴願案中，都是相關先前技術描述的修正議題，如：
my two cents:
實務上，歐洲審查意見常會要求補充先前技術，理由是有很接近的先前技術，還有是因為現行實務上背景技術（一般會申請歐洲專利，常常是有美案在先）描述過於簡便的原因。
因為符合專利審查委員要求而提出修正可以順利獲准專利，或是因為拒絕這個要求而擔負專利核駁的風險，就看你的戰鬥力了！
訴願決定備份：https://app.box.com/s/a8ca76bc34mdhaudp685jv0ywdv5fxjl
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言