後見之明之於顯而易見性 - In re McLaughlin (CCPA 1971)

""Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper." In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)."

這個1971年CCPA判決中給予「後見之明（hindsight）」一個註解。在「顯而易見性（obviousness，或說進步性）」的判斷中，審查委員往往會根據一些前案的揭露事實作出發明是否輕易達成的意見，但這是現在的實務，曾經，審查委員可以自己判斷發明是否顯而易見。不過，此案給予的指示是，如這段話的第一句，任何關於顯而易見性的判斷"在某種意義上"必然是基於"後見之明"的推理的重建（"reconstruction based upon a hindsight reasoning"）。

不過，審查時會要求審查委員根據發明完成當下的"普通技術人員"的知識來判斷，不用"僅"根據申請人揭露內容的知識，這樣後見推理的重建是適當的。

然而，美國專利審查雖給予審查委員一個後見之明的權限，仍是仍在此之前已經有判例希望排除這類後見之明，包括應該要瞭解專利範圍、技術水平、先前技術內容，到了KSR判例即給予一些審查的心理規範。

如：
Graham v. John Deere Co. 判例（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/graham-v-john-deere-co.html）
KSR v. Teleflex案簡單描述（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/02/ksr-v-teleflex.html）

本案資訊：
In re McLAUGHLIN, Patent Appeal No. 8474. June 24, 1971
系爭案申請號：566701
發明人：Mclaughlin Gerald

系爭案申請人針對專利局訴願委員會決定提出上訴，爭議的請求項為Claims 13, 14, 15的顯而易見性（35 U.S.C. § 103）。

系爭案涉及一種鐵路車廂的配置，車廂有偏移的側門口（39, 40），車廂內有兩側艙壁或貨物隔板，可以縱向移動，使得可以根據貨物調整車廂內配置。車廂配置可以參考下圖，隔板（47, 48）可以向左移動，可以根據貨品自由調整空間。


先前技術有"四件"：
US 2,930,332


US 3,212,458


US 3,217,664


US 3,163,130


針對審查時引用的上述幾個前案，申請人上訴理由主要在於審查意見不當組合這些前案，認為前案並未建議（suggest）系爭案中車廂內縱向位移的隔板。不過，CCPA判斷此103是否適當時，認為這些前案的組合是否適當的討論，並非是基於每個前案的個別是否有"建議"系爭案的車廂設計，而是這些前案組合的整體是否讓相關領域普通技術人員有此建議。

"It should be too well settled now to require citation or discussion that the test for combining references is not what the individual references themselves suggest but rather what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art."

認為，任何關於顯而易見性的判斷"在某種意義上"必然是基於"後見之明"的推理的重建，且僅依據發明當下的普通技術水平的考量的推理重建仍為適當的。

"Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper."

CCPA法官同意前案Cook('332)確實沒有本案車廂內可以移動隔板的技術，但結合第二案'458後就可以達到本案車廂的目的。

系爭案申請人提出發明解決問題的證明，以及商業上成功（一年左右有355個車廂配備此設計，價值約800萬美元）且被競爭者採用的證明，就建議顯而易見的初步印象來說，同樣應該考量此類證據。

不過CCPA法官仍認為系爭案結構為相對簡單的設計，認為系爭案為針對已知目的（前案也為了解決車廂配置的問題）而簡單結合先前技術，並未產生超過其固有的用途。

"A patentable invention, within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. § 103, may result even if the inventor has, in effect, merely combined features, old in the art, for their known purpose, without producing anything beyond the results inherent in their use."

1971年CCPA決定（Patent Appeal No. 8474）：
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8512397767860305997

資料參考：http://www.ptab.us/2016/12/mclaughlin.html

"Appellants do not identify any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellants’ disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)."

information from James Long (ptab.us)

my two cents:
現在的審查方向考慮到KSR判例給予審查委員的權限，使得顯而易見性的判斷困難重重。

另有關於hindsight的參考案例PRINCETON BIOCHEMICALS, INC. v. BECKMAN COULTER, INC.，為了要證明以後見之明推論顯而亦知性，可將系爭發明作為一個路線圖來找前案，但如果用新的方式組合已存在特徵達到新的結果（這反而是發明的本質），這就非適當的方式。

"This line of reasoning would import hindsight into the obviousness determination by using the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components. Further, this improper method would discount the value of combining various existing features or principles in a new way to achieve a new result — often the essence of invention. "

https://scholar.google.com.tw/scholar_case?case=6806425829643768123

Ron