In re Nuijten案中訊號並無一系列動作，非屬於Process；
In re Nuijten案中訊號並無具體結構，不屬於Machine；
In re Nuijten案中訊號不是化學組成，不屬於Composition of Matter；
In re Nuijten案中訊號並非由製作過程產生的實體物品，不屬於Manufacture。
In re Nuijten案關於美國專利法第101條規定可專利的四大類技術的解釋，非屬於這四類技術的發明為不可專利標的，並為形成MPEP規範的引用案例：
MPEP 2106 PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
...
i. transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se), In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357, 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 2007);
...
以下列舉本部落格涉及In re Nuijten案的案件報導，除了最新報導Ex Parte Kosuru案算是一個烏龍（錯誤引用案例）外，其餘兩次報導都與"computer-readable medium"是否屬於101規定的四大類技術有關。
"computer-readable medium"是否為可專利的標的？（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/02/computer-readable-medium.html）
"non-transitory" computer-readable medium才是正確寫法！(About Claims)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/02/non-transitory-computer-readable.html）
In re Nuijten不適用方法專利判斷為非可專利標的的決定 - Ex parte Kosuru（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/06/in-re-nuijten-ex-parte-kosuru.html）
In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57(Fed. Cir. 2007)案件資訊：
系爭案：09/211,928
系爭案關於一種浮水印技術，可以在數位音訊檔案中嵌入額外的資料，例如，讓聆聽者可以在聆聽具有內嵌資料的音樂時，可以看到或聽到相關訊息。如果浮水印不清楚，有沒有浮水印的檔案將不會有太多差異。系爭案Nuijten即提出在訊號中遷入補償資料以補償浮水印不清楚的問題的技術。
Claim 1：
A method of embedding supplemental data in a signal, comprising the steps of:
encoding the signal in accordance with an encoding process which includes the step of feeding back the encoded signal to control the encoding; and
modifying selected samples of the encoded signal to represent the supplemental data prior to the feedback of the encoded signal and including the modifying of at least one further sample of the encoded signal preceding the selected sample if the further sample modification is found to improve the quality of the encoding process.
Claim 1揭露內嵌補償資料到訊號中的軟體方法，透過修改由編碼訊號中採樣得到的訊息形成補償資料，以改善編碼程序中的品質，即改善浮水印。
系爭請求項Claim 14：
A signal with embedded supplemental data, the signal being encoded in accordance with a given encoding process and selected samples of the signal representing the supplemental data, and at least one of the samples preceding the selected samples is different from the sample corresponding to the given encoding process.
請求項14直指「A signal with embedded supplemental data」，顯然觸動是否符合可專利性標的的本質爭議。
本案審查過程經USPTO/BPAI駁回，理由包括有部分請求項涉及「傳播於儲存媒體的暫時性電磁訊號（"transitory electrical and electromagnetic signals propagating through some medium"）」等非法定可專利標的，違反35USC101規定，USPTO理由如下摘錄，包括：系爭案部分請求項僅為抽象特徵，沒有具體特徵；這些請求項不屬於101規定的可專利標的，例如，發明沒有動作（acts），並非process；沒有具體結構，並非machine；非物質成份；更非任何製品
"First, it noted that “[t]he signal . . . has no physical attributes and merely describes the abstract characteristics of the signal and, thus, it is considered an ‘abstract idea’” unpatentable under Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). Second, the Board determined that the claims at issue fell into none of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter: “process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. In the Board’s view, the claims were not directed to a process because they did not “recite acts”; not a machine because “the signal . . . has no concrete tangible physical structure”; and “not composed of matter and [therefore] clearly not a ‘composition of matter.’” Finally, the Board noted that “[t]he signal does not have any physical structure or substance and does not fit the definition of a ‘manufacture’ which requires a tangible object.” Accordingly, the Board rejected Claims 14 and 22-24 solely on the basis of unpatentability under § 101."
本案上訴至CAFC，Nuijten提出反駁，認為訊號將以具體裝置收發，應有硬體承載，但CAFC法官仍認為如上述請求項14僅是訊號資訊，相關具體載體與本項無關。CAFC意見摘要如下：
"The claim must be within at least one category, so the court can proceed to other aspects of the § 101 analysis. See State Street, 149 F.3d at 1371 ("[I]t is of little relevance whether claim 1 is directed to a `machine' or a `process.'"). State Street sets forth a sound premise, but this case presents a different situation. The essence of the dispute between the parties is whether a transitory signal is covered by any statutory category. The four categories together describe the exclusive reach of patentable subject matter. If a claim covers material not found in any of the four statutory categories, that claim falls outside the plainly expressed scope of § 101 even if the subject matter is otherwise new and useful. We must therefore determine whether any of the four categories encompass the claims on appeal, and it is appropriate to consider each of the categories in turn."
Process（一系列動作）：
法官認定系爭案Claim 14範圍仍涉及產品，並非任何動作，沒有將任何東西（訊號本身）轉為物品執行的程序，不屬於Process。
"The Supreme Court and this court have consistently interpreted the statutory term "process" to... "A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act, or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing.""
Machine（無具體結構）：
美國最高法院層定義"machine"為包括一些部位組合的具體物品，顯然暫態的電子訊號不是任何物品的任何部分。
"The Supreme Court has defined the term "machine" as "a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices.""
Composition of matter（化學組成）：
系爭案請求項訊號明顯非化學組成（非化合物、機器混合物、氣體、流體、粉末或固體）。
" the Supreme Court has defined "composition of matter" to mean "all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids."
Manufacture（由製作過程產生的實體物品）：
訊號為人產生的，被編碼、被傳送，但卻不足以為符合由製作過程產生的實體物品，最高法院定義"manufacture"為由材料給予新的形式、特性或組合而製成的物品，不論是人做或是機器做的。系爭案請求項界定的訊號並非如此定義的"manufacture"。
"The Supreme Court has defined "manufacture" (in its verb form) as "the production of articles for use from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery.""
結論：
A transitory, propagating signal like Nuijten's is not a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." Those four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter. The Board's rejection of the application's Claims 14, 22, 23, and 24 is therefore AFFIRMED.
In re Nuijten案檔案：https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10452958658909281037&q=500+F.3d+1346&hl=en&as_sdt=80003
CAFC判決備份：https://app.box.com/s/jdmxrk4w74dxik8ebmx1r06oegu02ms6
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言