這是1931的老案子，由CCPA（Court of Customs and Patent Appeal）審理（Patent Appeal No. 2606），並作出判決，認為僅由兩個輪子複製到四或六個輪子的技術並非是可專利的發明。
本案例In re MARCUM為美國專利局訴願委員會在作出核駁系爭專利請求項3-5, 9的決定後，申請人提出上訴。
系爭專利：US 1851198（Dirigible wheel mounting and steering apparatus）
系爭專利涉及在機動車上裝載於轉向裝置的傳動輪（"dirigible wheels"），如摘錄Claim 3界定的車輛裝置包括有一對轉向輪軸；一個車架，包括與輪軸支撐車架的彈簧，可以讓雙軸的承載相同的力，且允許超過彈簧的轉向；輪子的轉向裝置、轉向控制裝置，以及轉向裝置與控制裝置的連接件，可以某種程度補償輪子與車架相對移動的情況。
Claim 3：
3. A vehicle comprising a pair of axles; a pair of steering wheels supporting each axle; a frame; means comprising springs for supporting said frame from said axles in a manner to divide the load equally between said axles and permitting a motion substantially greater than the spring deflection of each axle with relation to said frame; steering means for said wheels; steering control means supported on said frame; and connections between said steering means and said control means compensating to a substantial degree for the relative movement of said wheels with relation to said frame.
Claim 9：
9. A vehicle comprising a frame, tandem axles supported on dirigible wheels, each axle being secured to said frame by a pair of springs that are pivotally mounted on said frame at their front ends, means to connect the rear ends of said springs to said frame, means attached to said wheels to steer them, and mechanism to actuate said means including rearwardly extending links swinging about pivots that are substantially in the vertical plane containing the spring pivots and secured to said last named means at points substantially in vertical planes containing the axes of the dirigible mounting of the wheels.
引用前案為：Whittelsey, US1,126,326, Hallner, US1,234,014。
US1,126,326 / Whittelsey
US1,234,014 / Hallner
CCPA意見：
從技術來看，申請人主張系爭專利說明書記載的新穎特徵在：具有彈簧裝置的傳動輪軸，以及裝載於車架上的轉向齒輪與連桿，申請人認為這些特徵已經超越先前技術。
CCPA認為，這部分特徵已經被揭露於先前技術中，其中允許運動超過各輪軸與車架之間彈簧的技術已經被'326揭露，共同轉向的傳動輪的技術也揭露於'014中。但申請人認為'014並未揭露四個傳動輪與兩個輪軸的特徵，因此並未落於引證案揭露內容中。
對此，CCPA認為單純的複製並非是發明，另一說法是，僅部分的複製並非是可專利的發明（"A mere duplication of parts is not invention."），說明因為前案適用於「兩輪」，因此仍適用在「四輪」或「六輪」，使得系爭專利仍不具專利性。
US1,234,014 / Hallner揭露兩個傳動輪之間的結構：
系爭專利（四輪）：
CCPA同意訴願委員會意見。
系爭專利公告後僅留下兩項專利範圍，範圍與上述系爭請求項已有差異：
claim 1; A vehicle comprising a pair of axles; a pair of steering wheels supporting each axle; a frame; means for supporting said frame from said axles in a manner to divide the frame load equally between said axles; and permitting a substantial motion of each of said axles about independent fixed axes with relation to said frame; steering means for said wheels supported from said wheels; steering control means" supported on said frame comprising connections substantially to said fixed axes; and connections substantially from each fixed axis to the axle supported steering members.
2. A multi-wheel road vehicle including a frame, parallel axles, dirigible wheels on said axles, springs interconnecting said frame and said axles, each spring being secured to a the frame about the spring pivots, equalizing 'means between said springs, steering mechanism on said frame, and means connecting said frame carried steering mechanism to 5 said dirigible wheels including arms mounted to swing on axes that are substantially in vertical alignment with the axes of the spring pivots.
my two cents: (updated on Oct. 29, 2016)
「單純的複製並非是發明」自然是"不容易"獲取專利，但是如果這個複製並非"單純"，則是可能的，例如（常在上課提到的簡單案例），一個杯子有一個耳（單耳），相對於沒有耳的杯子，就是提供手扶的把手避免晃動、好拿、防燙等的功效；那雙耳呢？
接著有杯子發展（複製）成兩個耳（雙耳），如果功能還是提供把手避免晃動與防燙，就可能落於「單純的複製」，反之，如果雙耳提供新的功效，則可能獲得專利，新的功效比如提供嬰幼兒用雙手拿杯子的「學習杯」，這個角度如果沒有人做過（新穎）則是很有機會取得專利；那三耳？ ...除非有心的想法，同樣的道理。
CCPA判決：
https://scholar.google.com.tw/scholar_case?case=4642118232764431304&q=378
資料推薦：James Long, PTAB.us
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言