裝置固有達成的"新用途"為顯而易見 - MPEP 2112.02

實例：
電路元件都有自己固有（inherent）的功能，電路元件組合也會產生固有的功能，不會因為放在哪裡有所不同，除非有其他電路加入，或是加入一個控制邏輯。因此，審查委員要核駁一個電路（或說裝置）執行的流程（process）時，只要找到可以對比該電路的前案，即可證明該電路執行的流程不具新穎性，或顯而易知，無須再針對該流程提出引證前案。

截錄OA案例：


一件專利申請案，請求項標的有兩組，一個是方法，一個是電路，如果審查委員認為方法不見得僅能用該電路實現，以及電路不見得僅能實施該方法，就可能發出限制要求，要求申請人選擇其一進行後續審查。

若「該方法僅能由該電路實現」，或是「該電路僅能實現該方法」，就"可能"不會接獲限制要求，同時，可能會接獲如此OA範例的內容，如果電路（或說裝置）與方法是相依且互相支撐，就如MPEP 2112.02規範的固有原則（principles of inherency），先前技術與系爭案請求項/說明書所界定的電路（或裝置）一樣，即表示先前技術電路/裝置"固有"執行該方法。

"when the prior art device is the same as  a device described in the specification for carrying out claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process."

反之亦然，如果先前技術已經記載該方法，也就表示已經揭露該電路/裝置。

根據MPEP 2112.02規定，第(I)條表示，只要裝置（先前技術）在一般操作下實現該方法（專利申請案），先前技術的裝置即揭露了該方法。如此表示，當審查委員檢索到同樣的先前裝置，則無須證明已揭露專利方法，就可作出核駁意見。

第(II)條表示，舊的架構與組合（如化學成份）的新與非顯而易見的用途"可以"被專利。也就是，若發明人在舊的結構的未知特性上開發出新的用途（new use），為可專利標的（might be patentable，語氣十分不確定）。情況是，若所述的用途基於舊的結構或組合的特性（固有特性），則即便是"新的用途（法院不認為這是新用途）"，仍無法專利，不具新穎性。

因此重點還是「新的裝置、新的組合」較為可能專利，若基於舊的裝置或組合，除非可以證明，相對較難克服新穎性或進步性不足的問題。

MPEP 2112.02 PROCESS CLAIMS (摘錄)

I. PROCESS CLAIMS — PRIOR ART DEVICE ANTICIPATES A CLAIMED PROCESS IF THE DEVICE CARRIES OUT THE PROCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATION

Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (The claims were directed to a method of enhancing color effects produced by ambient light through a process of absorption and reflection of the light off a coated substrate. A prior art reference to Donley disclosed a glass substrate coated with silver and metal oxide 200-800 angstroms thick. ...

II. PROCESS OF USE CLAIMS — NEW AND UNOBVIOUS USES OF OLD STRUCTURES AND COMPOSITIONS MAY BE PATENTABLE

The discovery of a new use for an old structure based on unknown properties of the structure might be patentable to the discoverer as a process of using. In re Hack, 245 F.2d 246, 248, 114 USPQ 161, 163 (CCPA 1957). However, when the claim recites using an old composition or structure and the “use” is directed to a result or property of that composition or structure, then the claim is anticipated. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090, 197 USPQ 601, 607 (CCPA 1978) (Claims 1 and 6, directed to a method of effecting nonaddictive analgesia (pain reduction) in animals, were found to be anticipated by the applied prior art which disclosed the same compounds for effecting analgesia but which was silent as to addiction. The court upheld the rejection and stated that the applicants had merely found a new property of the compound and such a discovery did not constitute a new use. The court went on to reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 2-5 and 7-10 which recited a process of using a new compound. The court relied on evidence showing that the nonaddictive property of the new compound was unexpected.). ...

Ron