「分割申請案（divisional application）」在多數國家的意義是從原母案中"切割"出尚未主張權利的技術，成為另一申請案的「申請專利範圍」的專利樣態，一旦獲准，分割案專利與母案一起"到期"，分割案可獨立主張專利權。
編註：美國專利分割案為針對「限制選擇」後的申請樣態，將未選擇（non-elected）的申請專利範圍提出一延續案（DIV與CA寫作與申請規定是一致的），這時程序上稱為分割申請案（Divisional）。這樣看來，美國的延續申請案（Continuation Application，CA）是比較貼近其他各國的分割申請案的樣態。
美國專利：
美國延續申請案35 U.S.C. 120（AIA後）：
35 U.S.C. 120 Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States.
An application for patent for an invention disclosed in the manner provided by section 112(a) (other than the requirement to disclose the best mode) in an application previously field in the United States, or as provided by section 363 which names an inventor or joint inventor in the previously filed application shall have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed on the date of the prior application, if filed before the patenting or abandonment of or termination of proceedings on the first application or on an application similarly entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the first application and if it contains or is amended to contain a specific reference to the earlier filed application. No application shall be entitled to the benefit of an earlier filed application under this section unless an amendment containing the specific reference to the earlier filed application is submitted at such time during the pendency of the application as required by the Director. The Director may consider the failure to submit such an amendment within that time period as a waiver of any benefit under this section. ...
美國分割申請案35 U.S.C. 121（AIA後）：
35 U.S.C. 121 Divisional applications.
If two or more independent and distinct inventions are claimed in one application, the Director may require the application to be restricted to one of the inventions. If the other invention is made the subject of a divisional application which complies with the requirements of section 120 it shall be entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original application. A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application. The validity of a patent shall not be questioned for failure of the Director to require the application to be restricted to one invention.
有趣的是，從法條本身找「amend、修正」的關鍵字，只有35 U.S.C. 120有修正的規範，這也是CA給申請人的彈性，在發明內容、實施例與原母案一致的條件下，可修正整篇說明書，並可提出新的申請專利範圍。
「分割申請案（DIV）」是從母案選出「限制選擇程序中未選擇」的申請專利範圍提出分割案申請，原則上遞件時「無須修正」，若要修正應該是申請後（或申請同時）提出的preliminary amendments。
歐洲專利：
歐洲專利的分割案沒有不一樣的地方，但是由於都是架構在case law，仍可以就當中的案例討論（應該要挑幾個來討論）。
提出歐洲分割申請案，常見也是因為在母案檢索階段接獲「不符單一性規定」的官方意見（OA, 或稱communication），有些請求項並未列入檢索（或是未被選擇要審查）的對象中，日後，申請人可針對這部分申請專利範圍提出分割申請案。
歐洲分割申請案自然不能超出原母案揭露內容，分割案提出時可以一併修正，不能超出原內容。
歐洲申請案的修正規定在Art. 123 EPC，EPO至少提供一次讓申請人主動修正的機會，包括提出分割申請案時，這時可以依照規定，在不超出專利內容的條件下擴大專利範圍，一旦獲准就不能修正擴大範圍了。
Article 123 Amendments (http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/ar123.html)
A European divisional application shall be filed directly with the European Patent Office in accordance with the Implementing Regulations. It may be filed only in respect of subject-matter which does not extend beyond the content of the earlier application as filed; in so far as this requirement is complied with, the divisional application shall be deemed to have been filed on the date of filing of the earlier application and shall enjoy any right of priority.
參考連結：
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_ii_f_2_2.htm
[法條，以下保留case law連結]
2.2.
Amendments to divisional applications
Divisional applications are new applications which are separate and independent from the earlier applications. Amendments to a divisional application are thus allowed under Art. 123(2) EPC to the same extent as amendments of any other non-divisional application (G 1/05, OJ 2008, 271, points 9.1-9.2 of the Reasons).
Divisional applications are new applications which are separate and independent from the earlier applications. Amendments to a divisional application are thus allowed under Art. 123(2) EPC to the same extent as amendments of any other non-divisional application (G 1/05, OJ 2008, 271, points 9.1-9.2 of the Reasons).
Amendments may be allowed even if the divisional application as filed contains – contrary to Art. 76(1), second sentence, first half sentence, EPC – subject-matter extending beyond the earlier application as filed. Such a divisional application is not to be considered "invalid" (G 1/05, OJ 2008, 271, point 2.9 of the Reasons). It may still be amended during examination proceedings so that it complies with the requirements of Art. 76(1) EPC, provided always, however, that the amendment complies with the other requirements of the EPC (see G 1/05, OJ 2008, 271, point 7 of the Reasons). Even if the earlier application is no longer pending, it remains possible to amend a divisional application to bring it in line with the requirements of Art. 76(1) EPC (G 1/05, OJ 2008, 271, points 8.1-8.2 of the Reasons).
If a divisional application is amended, it must meet both the requirements of Art. 76(1) EPC and those of Art. 123(2) EPC, so as to preclude the introduction of new subject-matter into the examination proceedings (see, among many others, T 284/85, T 441/92, T 873/94, OJ 1997, 456; T 1221/97, T 1008/99, T 561/00, T 402/00, T 423/03).
連結：http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/c_ix_1_4.htm
1.4
Examination of a divisional application
The substantive examination of a divisional application should in principle be carried out as for any other application but the following special points need to be considered. The claims of a divisional application need not be limited to subject-matter already claimed in claims of the parent application. Furthermore, no abuse of the system of divisional applications can be identified in the mere fact that the claims of the application on which the Examining Division had then to decide had a broader scope than the claims granted in relation with the parent application (see T 422/07).
資料參考：USPTO, EPO, bitlaw.com
my two cents:
若名為「分割申請案」，但又想修正專利範圍或是內容（誤繕與澄清為由），名正言順的話，應該是提出「延續申請案（CA）」。
另一種方式，大概就在提出分割申請案之後，在OA答辯過程「調整」到想要的範圍，或是在接獲第一次OA之前提出初步修正（preliminary amendments）。
分割申請案的初步修正討論：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/04/blog-post_4.html
其他參考（這類議題總是值得討論的議題，而類似以下的連結只會多不會少）：
- 分割案筆記（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/06/blog-post_5.html）
- 美國專利法第121條（分割案）（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/07/121.html）
- 設計專利的延續案（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/05/blog-post.html）
- CA與DIV的應用（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/05/cadiv.html）
- 分割案與初步修正的應用筆記（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/04/blog-post_4.html）
- 美國專利延續案的操作討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/11/blog-post_17.html）
（本篇提到一些策略，如：
"短期策略，這發生在有一專利申請案中的較廣範圍遭遇核駁，但可能其下位技術可以獲准，或是很有希望透過限縮獲准，但是卻又不想放棄較廣範圍的專利，於是，可以在接獲核駁意見後法定期限內（3-6個月）提出CA案，CA案主要範圍是母案中可以獲准（或可能經限縮而可獲准的）的範圍，為的是先拿到一個專利（可能比較貼近實際產品）；為了取得具有侵略性的專利，母案則繼續答辯，期待獲准另一個範圍更廣的專利。
長期策略，有價值的專利佈局通常是多面相的專利保護佈局，比如以多個角度去界定一個技術（產品），讓專利相關技術不容易被迴避，因此價值可以更高。於是母案（可為多種母案、多個provisional applications）所涵蓋技術特徵應該多樣、豐富，使得延續案操作的角度更有彈性。這樣的專利佈局有利於授權、保護授權廠商利益、建立技術門檻、涵蓋更多的可能侵權者（上下游），自然也提高授權金或買賣金額。"
）
順便補充一下我國分割案修正的時機，審查前後有所不同，內容來自：https://www.tipo.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=504223&ctNode=7633&mp=1
專利案申請分割時，原申請案為分割而同時進行的修正，也要受到期間限制嗎？
答：分割申請時，若原申請案(母案)因分割而需修正，該修正於審定前均得為之。惟分割後，原申請案(母案)及分割案(子案)之修正，則有期限限制。即發明(設計)必須在申請人於本局發給審查意見通知前，提出修正。於本局發給審查意見通知後，僅得於該通知指定之期間內提出修正；申請人於初審核駁審定後，提出再審查時，於本局發給再審查意見通知前，仍得提出修正。惟於本局發給再審查意見通知後，僅得於該通知指定之期間內提出修正(專利法第43條第3項、專利法第142條準用專利法第43條第3項)。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言