http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_ii_b_2_1.htm
本篇提到「歐洲訴願委員會」作出的幾個可以在一篇歐洲專利中包括多個獨立項的案例（2.1. Plurality of independent claims ），十分具有參考價值。
"Under Art. 82 EPC, as under R. 13.1 PCT, the application must relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept. The second of these alternatives, i.e. the single-concept linked group, may give rise to a plurality of independent claims in the same or different categories."
歐洲訴願委員會在 W 5/92案例（28 February 1992，申請人：柯達公司）表示，即便系爭案有單一性的問題，但是仍有多組獨立項符合單一性的決定，當申請專利範圍連結到單一發明概念下，即便在相同或不同類別（有前提）中，仍可以存在多項獨立項。
案件資訊：
國際申請案：PCT/US 91/03089
PCT公開案：https://www.google.com.tw/patents/WO1991017627A2?cl=en&dq=PCT/US+91/03089&hl=zh-TW&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjolvDJscLXAhVINJQKHS2oCP4Q6AEIJTAA
進入歐洲申請案：
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/df7d7267e79ff3765230/EP0483321B1.pdf
系爭案關於利用二位元結構列印頭（printhead）列印灰階影像的技術，這是一種非接觸式列印裝置（non-impact printing apparatus）。EPO公開資料顯示此案具有三個獨立請求項，但當時由PCT進入EPO時，被認為因為不符單一性而要求要繳付額外檢索費才會對整體專利範圍提出檢索報告，當時提出申請案中具有兩組發明：
當時申請人同意繳付額外檢索費用（additional search fee），但也提出答辯，認為其第二組範圍中的幾項請求項已經涵蓋了第一組範圍，因此認為這些請求項在單一共同技術概念下，符合單一性。
"The applicant paid the additional search fee under protest and argued that since various appendant claims in the alleged second group, in particular Claims 17, 25 and 26, included the features of the alleged first group, there was a single general inventive concept linking the two groups of claims."
不過，進入歐洲案時，應該是經過修正後，成為目前公告的三項獨立項（組）。
在討論各申請專利範圍之間是否滿足單一性時，不免要討論到各項之間否有「共同技術特徵」，這就看系爭案發明的特點為何。
列舉Claim 1：
1. A non-impact recording apparatus comprising:
a binary architectured printhead including
a) a plurality of recording elements;
b) a respective register means associated with each recording element for storing a single image data bit and cooperating in activating the respective recording element for a predetermined enablement time as determined by a strobe pulse;
c) means including a plurality of independent enable lines for carrying a plurality of strobe timing pulses ;
d) an enabling means for enabling a recording element in response to a data bit stored in the respective register means and to a strobe timing pulse;
e) means coupling a respective recording element to a respective enable line;
driving means for driving said binary architectured printhead to record grey level pixels using plural sub-lines to record each grey level pixel; said driving means including
a) means for generating a new set of sub-line binary data signals for each sub-line of recording and for conveying such signals to the printhead for storing in said respective register means; and
b) means for generating on each enable line a repeating series of strobe timing pulses, the series of pulses being a set of pulses of different durations for use in recording a grey level pixel, a pulse from the set being generated during a sub-line exposure period on each enable line and each enable line having a pulse from said set generated thereon that is a different duration than that generated on the other enabling lines during said sub-line recording period and wherein during a sub-line exposure period the respective pulses on the enabling lines are substantially nonconcurrent.
申請案第一組發明關於非接觸式列印裝置（Claims 1-11），說明書描述由陣列型式LED靜電充電的網絡的電子圖像的安排，在列印頭上可以通過靜電吸附碳粉固定到紙張上。本案解決習知技術中LED同時被驅動時需要大量的電力，在列印頭上形成高熱的負載，於是解決方式是在一段時間內分次記錄畫素值，不過，即便如此，習知的問題是，通過控制時間間隔驅動LED發光記錄灰階資訊的不同密度的畫素，會使得列印頭過長時間處於高電流的狀態，系爭案發明即提出採用二位元架構列印頭的灰階列印裝置，可以最小化列印頭上的熱負載與相對較短的曝光時間。
如此，歐洲訴願委員會認為，進入歐洲階段的三組獨立（Claims 1, 6, 7）請求項關於非接觸式列印裝置，裝置包括有多個記錄元件，用以記錄影像訊號。技術描述如下：
即便Claims 1, 6, 7彼此有差異，但皆為解決電力耗損與列印頭過熱的問題。
關於第二組發明（Claims 12-32，共32項），並不同於以上第一組範圍解決電力消耗與熱負載的技術問題，反倒是有關LED的亮度變動問題。
列舉Claim 12：
12. In a non-impact printing apparatus for recording, the apparatus comprising:
a binary architectured printhead including a plurality of recording elements; data formatting means coupled to said printhead for organizing data signals for transmission to said printhead, said formatting means including buffer means for storing signals representing a line of pixel data with each pixel represented by a multibit grey level data signal of n binary bits, correction means for modifying said multibit data signal to a corrected multibit pixel printing data signal, means for outputting said multibit grey level data signal to the input of said correction means; multiplexer means for selecting one of the n data bits of said multibit signal for transmission to the printhead; and control means for repeating n times the output of said multibit grey level data signal of each pixel to said correction means.
訴願委員會認為，第二組有關LED亮度變動的問題並不同於第一組處理電力損耗與熱負載的問題，雖然，這兩個技術問題都是有關因為列印頭熱梯度造成LED光線不一致的問題，顯然解決方式不同。
因此判決認為，系爭案申請專利範圍沒有單一共同技術特徵，不符歐洲單一性規定。
另外，關於專利申請人主張第二組範圍中有部分請求項涵蓋第一組範圍的技術內容，但訴願委員會無法接受這個答辯，理由是，也就是獨立請求項，根據PCT相關單一性規定，各項之間僅能有一個發明，或是一組發明連結一共同技術概念下。這裡所稱發明，是指各項之間最廣的那項 - 獨立項，就不是指附屬項了。
另補充，根據PCT國際檢索指南，包括有多個獨立請求項的國際申請案，在相同類別下，或是在PCT Rule 13.2與13.3（如下，有一或多個一樣或對應的特殊技術特徵）規範的不同類別下，沒有理由作出不符單一性核駁意見。
[法條]
Rule 13
Unity of Invention
13.2 Circumstances in Which the Requirement of Unity of Invention Is to Be Considered Fulfilled
Where a group of inventions is claimed in one and the same international application, the requirement of unity of invention referred to in Rule 13.1 shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression "special technical features" shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim.
W5/92判決：
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/w920005eu1.html
PDF：http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/w920005eu1.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/9rcovzzavj7uzkrdwe7z4lp8boqbotmf）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言