另討論到「條件發明（conditional invention）」，其實很少人這樣講，我也是偶爾看到老外這樣稱呼，不過也算是中題。以下為相關案例（Michael S. Sutton Ltd. v. Nokia Corp. (Dist. Court, ED Texas 2009)），忘了是從哪裡得到的資訊，如果找回，會適當填回。
條件式的專利範圍撰寫方式可以是：
Ving...if...;
Ving...if...; and
Ving...if....
案例討論：
原告：MICHAEL S. SUTTON LIMITED
侵權被告：NOKIA CORPORATION and Nokia Inc.
系爭專利：US 5,771,238
本案是有上訴到CAFC，不過CAFC以Rule 36終止程序，CAFC同意地院意見。（Rule 36可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/07/rule-36-cafc.html）
系爭專利關於一種加強版單向電波7位元數據網路，這是一個處理呼叫器訊息的網路，以7位元單向傳遞電波，但是一般卻是以8位元傳遞文字碼（ASCII）與二進位檔，也用以傳遞設定指令，因此文字與二進位檔需要經過處理後才能透過7位元網路傳遞，系爭專利就是處理這個技術，如此，在請求項中使用"if"等條件判斷雖非必要（後見之明），但也頗為合理。
Claim 1：
1. A method of preparing a message packet for digital data transmission which enables eight bit data, binary data and control messages to be encapsulated in a 7 bit character packet where one or more of the 7 bit characters are prohibited comprising the steps of:
(1) analysing a message to be transmitted to ascertain if it is a control message or a data message,
(2) if a data message,
(a) analysing it to determine if it can be compressed according to a known compression technique and if so compressing the data by that technique,
(b) if compression was not possible, and if the data consists of characters which are uniquely determined by 7 bits, treating the data as a 7 bit character string and stuffing the 7 bit character string into an 8 bit string,
(c) assigning a sub-channel number to data which is processed according to steps 2(a) or (b) or which has not been so processed,
(3) assembling the message packet which incorporates
(a) framing information which includes bits which indicate whether the packet is control data or message data,
(b) information indicative of assigned sub-channel where the message is a data message, and
(c) the control data or
(d) the compressed, stuffed or unoptimised message data,
(4) unpacking the packet from 8 bit bytes to form a 7 bit byte packet,
(5) analysing the 7 bit byte packet to ascertain if it contains any prohibited characters and if so substituting such prohibited characters with a suitable escape character and a complementary check character to produce the message packet for transmission.
Claim 3：
3. A method of receiving an incoming encoded binary message having packets transmitted over a paging network by a selective call receiver which enables the message receiver to receive at a single network address, unmodified paging messages and to selectively accept or reject eight bit data information messages and encoded control messages as well as being able to accept or reject data information messages specified for a specific subchannel (0-255) for which the receiver respectively is or is not currently authorised to accept; for each received packet of an incoming message the method comprising the steps of:
(1) if the received packet has a predetermined header and the receiver is configured to receive unmodified messages, then processing the packet as a modified packet according to steps (2) to (8), otherwise sending the packet to a user's application as an unmodified paging message,
(2) if the receiver is configured to receive only data information messages processing the packet according to steps (3) to (8),
(3) treating the packet as 7 bit characters and reconstituting any characters indicated by a predetermined flag,
(4) packing the 7 bit characters into 8 bit characters,
(5) checking a frame byte for type of packet and compression,
(6) decompressing the packet to data,
(7) validating the subchannel and if valid releasing security passing the data to an end user application, and
(8) if the message is a control message parsing and processing the control message.
在此案例中，原告Sutton對Nokia提出侵權告訴，Nokia反過來提出系爭專利不明確、不能據以實施等實用性的專利無效意見，法院同意審理Nokia意見，並判定專利範圍無效。
解釋專利範圍（claim construction）時，法院引用內部證據，包括說明書與專利審查歷史，並以一般文字意義解釋請求項發明。這裡即採用前例的標準：合理解釋專利範圍的案例 - Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/05/phillips-v-awh-corp-fed-cir-2005.html）。
針對專利範圍，有幾個爭點。
議題一：前言
專利權人認為申請專利範圍的前言僅是描述技術目的與其意欲的用途（這是美國觀點，但case-by-case），而被告Nokia則主張前言為專利範圍的一部分（這比較歐洲一點）。法院採用的原則是：如果前言實際涉及技術本身，將成為限制，如果僅是描述技術目的與用途，則不會成為限制。
"A preamble is generally construed as a limitation if it recites essential structure or steps or if it is necessary to give life, meaning, or vitality to the claim."
"On the other hand, a preamble is not limiting where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and the preamble is merely used to state a purpose or intended use to the invention."
有關「前言」的效力可參考過去報導：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/11/mpep-211102about-claims.html、http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/07/blog-post_5.html。
就本案例而言，申請專利範圍「前言」形成了專利範圍的「前述基礎」，顯然影響了專利範圍，因此被列入限制條件。
議題二：步驟的順序
當專利範圍由步驟描述，「步驟順序」將會成為一個爭議。在本案中，Nokia主張順序就如請求項的描述，不能變動，Sutton則表示專利步驟可以任何順序實施。以下為法院態度：
"Generally, "although a method claim necessarily recites the steps of the method in a particular order, as a general rule the claim is not limited to performance of the steps in the order recited, unless the claim explicitly or implicitly requires a specific order."
"However, the specification or prosecution history may also require a narrower, order-specific construction of a method claim in some cases."
就本案例而言，申請專利範圍明確而有邏輯地描述了步驟順序，步驟之間有明確的前後關係，因此法院認定系爭專利發明應以所描述的步驟執行，且說明書也支持此論點。
議題三：條件式
有關「系爭專利請求項中所描述的「條件（if ...）」」，本案以"if"描述的專利範圍形成了強烈的「前後邏輯」，然而，這樣的邏輯若"不符邏輯"，就可能形成無法據以實施的嚴重問題（"if an invention is inoperable, then it will also fail the enablement requirement because a person skilled in the art would be unable to practice the invention"）。
如本案例系爭專利，法院認為其中有不符邏輯而不明確且無法實施的技術，即便專利權人Sutton極力爭辯，還是認定該項專利範圍不是相關領域技術人員可以實施的，想要修補都來不及，成為"不可能的發明"。
看來，系爭專利請求項3中的"if...only"描述方式造成了麻煩。「claim 3. ... (2) if the receiver is configured to receive only data information messages processing the packet according to steps (3) to (8)」，法院認為雖然似乎刪除"only"可以解決問題，但不同意在此刪除。
"No matter what the construction, there is no scenario where the claim steps can be logically performed giving meaning to all the words used in the claim. The logical inconsistency would be most easily resolved by the simple deletion of the word "only" from step (2). Though the inconsistency within claim 3 is likely the result of mere drafting error, courts are not permitted to rewrite claim language."
CAFC沒意見：
地方法院判決文：
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1404344610323139388&q=sutton+v.+nokia&hl=en&as_sdt=2,48
my two cents:
對於「步驟順序」的解釋原則：（我本人的意見）看技術而定，如果是製程，步驟一般來說是重要的限制；若說明書描述步驟影響了實際技術目的，步驟順序為重要的限制，或是專利答辯時有強調或修正過，步驟順序為必要限制；若步驟有明顯前後關係，例如之後的步驟會因為之前步驟而改變，顯然順序是一個重要的技術限制；如果前後順序在相關技術人員來看可以輕易顛倒而不影響結果，則步驟順序顛倒不能成為限制，而後案也不能以此為迴避的條件。
參考案例：方法步驟順序的限制 - Mformation v. RIM案例討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/09/mformation-v-rim.html）
有關條件發明，有時無法避免地需要以「條件式」來撰寫專利範圍，但需要避免過於限定的用語，如"if ... only"。其他，我認為會有兩種不同的面相：
「侵權比對」時，由於兩個以上的條件式（判斷式）都寫在請求項中，對照被告產品需要有這幾個判斷步驟才算”侵權”，也就表示對照產品若沒有這麼多判斷條件，至少就不落入「全要件」（另有均等論需要討論）。也就是，如果對照被告產品僅執行條件中的某一動作，但沒有其他判斷條件，仍可能不落入侵權。
顯然，條件式寫法的專利範圍將受限於所有的條件都要讀到被告產品才算，範圍不見得廣。
「專利性」討論時，案例顯示卻又不是這樣，專利範圍的"最廣"範圍在於「當有條件符合而流程結束，就以此為最廣專利範圍」，可參考案例報導Ex parte Schulhauser (PTAB 2013-007847)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/10/ex-parte-schulhauser-ptab-2013-007847.html）。也就是，當專利範圍中有多個條件式，但只要有前案揭露了其中一個條件符合後的動作，即算是對應到專利範圍的最大範圍。
這樣，表示條件式的專利範圍最大範圍在有條件符合而終止流程時，這時解讀範圍又很廣。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言