http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/11/long-felt-need.html
Apple v. Samsung的大戰中有涉及secondary consideration等進步性的輔助性答辯：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/03/cafc.html
摘錄CAFC判決文中回應Apple輔助性考量的內容：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-1171.Opinion.2-24-2016.1.PDF
其中，由於Apple的使用者介面方面的專利多半是改良使用者操作電子裝置的方便性與直覺式操作，確實在技術性上的答辯會吃虧，因此轉向進步性的輔助性考量，如解決長期沒有解決的問題、業界的讚賞、對手的仿冒，以及商業上的成功。
[重要]沒有人有需求解決這類問題，不算Long-Felt Need：
Apple v. Samsung案中，CAFC法官認為以提出長期以來存在的問題的解決方案證明發明非顯而易見，應提出產業界確實有要解決這些問題但是卻失敗的證據，認為Apple雖提出直覺操作裝置的介面，但是卻沒有提出業界有此需要解決問題的證據，因此認為Apple提出的內容並不足以證明有此長期存在的問題。
[重要]當地方法院裁決Samsung對Apple的US8,046,721（'721，滑動解鎖）專利侵權成立，光這件專利就判3百萬美元賠償（蓄意侵權），當Samsung上訴CAFC後，考量顯而易見性中的輔助性考量（"Secondary consideration"，如："commercial success, long felt but unsolved
needs, and the failure of others"），首先，需要建立「專利特徵」與「輔助性考量」之間的關聯性。
"For such evidence to be probative of nonobviousness, a patentee must demonstrate a nexus between the patented features and the particular evidence of secondary considerations."
7. A portable electronic device, comprising:
a touch-sensitive display;
memory;
one or more processors; and
one or more modules stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors, the one or more modules including instructions:
to detect a contact with the touch-sensitive display at a first predefined location corresponding to an unlock image;
to continuously move the unlock image on the touch-sensitive display in accordance with movement of the detected contact while continuous contact with the touch-sensitive display is maintained, wherein the unlock image is a graphical, interactive user-interface object with which a user interacts in order to unlock the device; and
to unlock the hand-held electronic device if the unlock image is moved from the first predefined location on the touch screen to a predefined unlock region on the touch-sensitive display.
8. The device of claim 7, further comprising instructions to display visual cues to communicate a direction of movement of the unlock image required to unlock the device.
對'721是否為顯而易見以及輔助性考量的爭辯自然要參考先前技術，Samsung提出'721專利的先前技術可參考過去報導（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/03/cafc.html），即便遭遇Apple對於"teach away"、"考量人類直覺"、"操作複雜度"、"前案結合的動機"等答辯理由，因為這些先前技術都設計在觸控面板的技術上，讓相關技術領域的人可以輕易完成，已經建立顯而易見性的初步證據（"prima facie case of obviousness"）。
[重要：Long-Felt but unresolved need]
Apple提出頗有參考價值的意見。Apple對'721是否非顯而易見的答辯中，認為過去的手機已經嘗試用很洩氣的方式解決如何「開啟/解鎖手機」，因為觸控顯示器常常容易被"觸發"，比如放在口袋中不知不覺就被觸按（"accidental activation of features on touch screen phones"），這是個明顯應該要解決的問題。但先技術如Nokia Neonode也嘗試提出解決方案，Apple答覆說Nokia的方式並不直覺。
CAFC法官提出過去有「以解決長期存在的需要而證明非顯而易見」的前例，但卻要提出證據證明「別人的失敗」，但就Samsung提出的前案來看，不能說這個長期存在的問題並未被解決（Nokia手機對此問題並非失敗）。
"The idea behind this secondary consideration is that if a particular problem is identified by an industry but left unsolved, the failure to solve the problem (despite the incentive to do so) supports a conclusion of nonobviouness."
Apple雖轉向顯而易見性的輔助性考量答辯，但一般來說，不夠強大的輔助性考量仍是難以克服強大的顯而易見性的初步證據（"weak secondary considerations generally do not overcome a strong prima facie case of obviousness"），依照法院前例，即便有商業成功、業界讚賞與解決長期需求的實質證據，仍"不足以"克服強大的顯而易見的初步證據。
"Where a claimed invention represents no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to established functions, . . . evidence of secondary indicia are frequently deemed inadequate to establish non-obviousness."
法院作出以下意見：
[其他]
CAFC法官認為Apple並未證明'721專利相對於前案有比較"直覺"，也沒有證明業界對此問題的解決方案為失敗的證據；雖Apple提出賈伯斯在第一次呈現iPhone滑動解鎖時報章雜誌充滿讚賞為'721專利非顯而易見的證據，但法官認為這些"Apple Fans"並非法律上足夠的證據；即便證據顯示Samsung研發手機時以iPhone與滑動解鎖為範本，但仍參考以上先前技術，仍不足以證明'721為非顯而易見；對於銷售成功，iPhone真的成功，但無法證明消費者是因為"滑動解鎖"而買iPhone，即便Apple有提出相關研究，但證據也不是直指成功銷售的iPhone手機。
結論：
US8,046,721（'721，滑動解鎖）專利為顯而易見。
my two cents:
總歸一句話，當證據剩下Secondary Consideration的理由時，都不足以克服「先前技術所建立的顯而易見性的初步證據」，意思是，當先前技術夠強時，輔助性的考量不容易克服進步性不足的問題。
[MPEP 716.04]
以下MPEP規定顯示，要證明解決長期存在的問題，需要（這是編者綜合整理）：(1)釐清問題；(2)證明沒有解決問題；(3)他人嘗試解決問題的失敗；(4)專利發明就是解決這個長期存在的問題；(5)不比技術特徵（證明解決問題的失敗不是看技術如何，而是看過去的方案是否在市場上失去興趣或是失去賞識（lack of interest or lack of appreciation））。
MPEP 716.04 LONG-FELT NEED AND FAILURE OF OTHERS
I. THE CLAIMED INVENTION MUST SATISFY A LONG-FELT NEED WHICH WAS RECOGNIZED, PERSISTENT, AND NOT SOLVED BY OTHERS
Establishing long-felt need requires objective evidence that an art recognized problem existed in the art for a long period of time without solution. The relevance of long-felt need and the failure of others to the issue of obviousness depends on several factors. First, the need must have been a persistent one that was recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Gershon, 372 F.2d 535, 539, 152 USPQ 602, 605 (CCPA 1967) (“Since the alleged problem in this case was first recognized by appellants, and others apparently have not yet become aware of its existence, it goes without saying that there could not possibly be any evidence of either a long felt need in the . . . art for a solution to a problem of dubious existence or failure of others skilled in the art who unsuccessfully attempted to solve a problem of which they were not aware.”); Orthopedic Equipment Co., Inc. v. All Orthopedic Appliances, Inc., 707 F.2d 1376, 217 USPQ 1281 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Although the claimed invention achieved the desirable result of reducing inventories, there was no evidence of any prior unsuccessful attempts to do so.).
Second, the long-felt need must not have been satisfied by another before the invention by applicant. Newell Companies v. Kenney Mfg. Co., 864 F.2d 757, 768, 9 USPQ2d 1417, 1426 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (Although at one time there was a long-felt need for a “do-it-yourself” window shade material which was adjustable without the use of tools, a prior art product fulfilled the need by using a scored plastic material which could be torn. “[O]nce another supplied the key element, there was no long-felt need or, indeed, a problem to be solved”.)
II. LONG-FELT NEED IS MEASURED FROM THE DATE A PROBLEM IS IDENTIFIED AND EFFORTS ARE MADE TO SOLVE IT
Long-felt need is analyzed as of the date the problem is identified and articulated, and there is evidence of efforts to solve that problem, not as of the date of the most pertinent prior art references. Texas Instruments Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1179, 26 USPQ2d 1018, 1029 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The failure to solve a long-felt need may be due to factors such as lack of interest or lack of appreciation of an invention’s potential or marketability rather than want of technical know-how. Scully Signal Co. v. Electronics Corp. of America, 570 F.2d 355, 196 USPQ 657 (1st. Cir. 1977).
See also Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 698, 218 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (presence of legislative regulations for controlling sulfur dioxide emissions did not militate against existence of long-felt need to reduce the sulfur content in the air); In re Tiffin, 443 F.2d 344, 170 USPQ 88 (CCPA 1971) (fact that affidavit supporting contention of fulfillment of a long-felt need was sworn by a licensee adds to the weight to be accorded the affidavit, as long as there is a bona fide licensing agreement entered into at arm’s length).
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言