有關Teach Away，就用這句不斷出現在USPTO意見、法官引用MPEP段落的句子來定義：
"A reference does not teach away if it expresses merely a general preference for an alternative invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan, and the reference does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”"
引用幾段MPEP內容，可以一窺究竟：
MPEP 2143.01，這裡教導我們，要爭辯審查意見不當引用前案的組合，可以證明(1)先前技術並未建議...，以及(2)藉由證明先前技術中技術的意旨不同於本發明（包括：criticize（批評）、discredit（懷疑）與discourage（阻止）本發明相關技術），而證明先前技術"反向教示"本發明。
..."Applicant argued that the combination was improper because (1) the prior art did not suggest having the hexagonal projections in a facing (as opposed to a “pointing”) orientation was the “most desirable” configuration for the projections, and (2) the prior art “taught away” by showing desirability of the “pointing orientation.” 391 F.3d at 1200-01, 73 USPQ2d at 1145-46. The court stated that “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” Id."...
MPEP 2141.02，先前技術與本發明的差異判斷，其中之一應考量先前技術要以整體，包括說明書等內容，"反向教示"本發明。
"VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS"
本案件資訊：
上訴人/專利權人：MICHAEL MEIRESONNE
被上訴人：GOOGLE, INC.
系爭專利：US8,156,096
本案緣起IPR案（IPR2014-01188）為系爭專利多項專利範圍為顯而易知（103）的結論，專利權人上訴CAFC。
系爭專利US8,156,096揭露一種供應商識別與定位技術，目的是要消費者可以透過網際網路查詢商品的供應商與來源，技術不外乎是提供雲端資料庫，建立網頁，提供各種供應商識別資訊與連結，專利範圍則是描述網頁的設計。
Claim 16：
16. A computer system including a server comprising:
at least one web site stored on the server and accessible by a user via the Internet, wherein the web site comprises a keyword results displaying web page that comprises:
爭點討論：反向教示。
a vertical listing of a plurality of related subject matter links to web sites that are directed to related subject matter information selected by the user;
a plurality of descriptive portions, wherein each descriptive portion is an associated descriptive portion that is adjacent to and associated by the user with an associated related subject matter link, which is one of the plurality of related subject matter links; and
a rollover viewing area that individually displays information corresponding to more than one of the related subject matter links in the same rollover viewing area when the user's cursor is at least substantially over any of the links, at least substantially over a link's descriptive portion, or substantially adjacent the corresponding descriptive portion and wherein the rollover viewing area is located substantially adjacent to the plurality of related subject matter links.
PTAB階段：
其實，CAFC意見不多，不能因此瞭解整體討論的點，主要還是在在IPR階段的爭議，IPR主要爭議在103顯而易見性，著重在先前技術「結合的動機」，以及是否前案中Finseth案是否「反向教示」與Hill案的結合，並討論如此是否有顯而易見性的「實質證據」。
專利權人Meiresonne主張前案Finseth內容詆毀了系爭專利中的"Descriptive Portions"，主要是要用影像取代"Descriptive Portions"，而不是用影像補充描述而已。請願人Google主張前案內容並不可知是否排除了"文字表示"的搜尋結果。
系爭專利遭遇的前案：
1997 book “World Wide Web Searching for Dummies, 2nd Edition” by Brad Hill (“Hill”)
U.S. Patent No.6,271,840 (“Finseth”)
專利權人Meiresonne引用Finseth"使用影像"作為超連結的證據：
"Image maps associated with the reduced images may also provide hyperlink access to the linked web page and/or multimedia allowing the links present on the web page in its original to be accessed through the reduced image provided by the web page renderer."
IPR請願人Google所提出的非反向教示的"實質證據"，主要是指Fig. 3中右上角的搜尋引擎（110）處理搜尋結果，再將結果送到產生程序（52），以此產生網頁縮圖，但對於如何處理搜尋結果是不可知的（"agnostic"）：
（強調）前案是否有"反向教示"系爭專利請求項範圍，要看前案內容是否有批評、迴避或是否決了爭議中的發明技術：
"A reference that “merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into” the claimed invention does not teach away."
在PTAB審理IPR中，認為前案Finseth並未詆毀使用文字描述來表示搜尋結果，因此不認為Finseth並未"反向教示"系爭專利的發明。
"We are not persuaded that Finseth disparages the use of descriptive portions sufficiently for us to conclude that Finseth teaches away from the claimed invention."
並且，Finseth因為沒有詆毀所述文字描述搜尋結果的方式，因此可以與另一前案Hill結合。
"We do not read Finseth as suggesting that these visual representations should replace all other types of search results, such as Hill’s descriptive portions."
因此，PTAB作出前案有組合的動機，以及教示了系爭專利相關請求項的發明。
"... we conclude that Google has demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 of the ʼ096 patent are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, as having been obvious over the combination of prior art references Hill and Finseth. The Hill and Finseth references themselves provide strong evidence that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to apply the Finseth graphical index to Hill to meet the limitations of the challenged claims. Even considering the objective evidence provided by Meiresonne, the preponderance of the evidence establishes the unpatentability of the challenged claims."
CAFC同意PTAB的意見：
CAFC法官主要著重在前案的組合動機，以及是否有造成系爭專利顯而易見的"實質證據"。
"What the prior art teaches, whether a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine references, and whether a reference teaches away from the claimed invention are questions of fact."
顯而易見性討論自然也涉及KSR判例，但是破除這個KSR判例中顯而易見性的阻礙，主要工具就是是否前案有"反向教示"系爭專利中的技術特徵。
若要證明前案有"反向教示"某個技術特徵，原則是判斷是否前案有排除/貶抑這個技術特徵：
"A reference teaches away “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken” in the claim."
前案若僅是表達了一般喜好，而非批評、詆毀，或是以某種方式勸阻某個爭議中的技術特徵，不成立"反向教示"。
"A reference that “merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not
criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage investigation into” the claimed invention does not teach away."
當前案之一Finseth判斷並未有明確有反向教示文字描述搜尋結果，即可與另一前案Hill中的文字描述有組合的動機，並經技術比對後，使得CAFC法官認定系爭專利爭議中的請求項範圍為顯而易見。
經法官閱覽了先前技術內容，認為「實質證據」支持了PTAB作出先前技術「並未反向教示」系爭專利的範圍，也就是說，系爭專利並未克服先前技術所帶來顯而易見性的阻礙。
"Reviewing both references, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Board’s fact finding that the prior art does not teach away from the claimed combination."
my two cents:
本篇判決不長，可以"仔細品味"一下，其中幾個重點是："實質證據"、"反向教示"與"先前技術組合的動機"，算是個不錯的學習內容。
顯而易見性討論涉及KSR判例，破除這個KSR判例中顯而易見性的阻礙，主要工具就是是否前案有"反向教示"系爭專利中的技術特徵。
若要證明前案有"反向教示（teach away）"，需要有"實質證據"，而證據是前案內容有明確"貶抑"爭議中的系爭專利的專利特徵，才算是"反向教示的實質證據"，照此例來看，前案"含糊不明確"的描述並非"貶抑"特定技術，不容易證明是"反向教示的實質證據"。
引證案的組合，也是要有結合的可能性，也就是某個前案不能"詆毀"另一個前案中的特定要組合的技術，等於是，前案之間也不能"反向教示"。
CAFC判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1755.Opinion.3-3-2017.1.PDF
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/pzmy2wpg58t2zk0brlltp4rpv5wb2ymq）
IPR2014-01188最終意見備份：https://app.box.com/s/mb11x5z27r83n3yv5ylwzbtcxnj8s2l8
科技產業資訊室也有報導：http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=13255
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言