因為英國（即便是脫歐後）為歐洲專利局的一員，可以同時享受（或說限制）歐洲專利局進入英國的專利申請案，以及直接進入英國的專利申請案，所以，雖然應該大部分規定都會趨於一致，但應該仍有差異，這裡討論一些有關申請專利範圍的撰寫規定。
直接切入「專利」主題，就從政府網頁「https://www.gov.uk」開始，找到「Business and self-employed」連結，進入「Patents, trade marks, copyright and designs」選項，其中資料很多，可以找到「Detailed guidance」中的「Patents」。其實其中有很多主題，如：「Apply for a patent」、「Patenting your invention」、「Search patent decisions」...等。
其中有不少有興趣的主題，如：「Patents: Manual of Patent Practice」、「Patents Formalities manual」、「Search patent decisions」等，本篇筆記以申請專利範圍討論為主。
專利實務手冊：
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/668760/MOPP-Jan18.pdf
這裡提到不少解釋專利範圍的司法判例：
- 解釋專利範圍，審查委員應以申請專利範圍定義的發明實質，不是僅根據請求項的文字而已。
"When determining if an invention falls foul of the exclusions, it is critical that the examiner consider the substance of the invention rather than the form of claim provided, by looking beyond the strict literal wording of the claims. For example, when a claim is directed to a computer program, the examiner must look at what the computer program will do when run, as established in paragraph 49 of Astron Clinica Ltd & Ors v The Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2008] EWHC 85, RPC 14." - 發明係以請求項的中心概念而定，整體來看，應並非限定在單一實施例中，而可涵蓋到其他並未排除的實施方式。
"It is not the nature of a single embodiment of an invention which is important when determining whether it is excluded, but the nature of the central idea or invention which is embodied in the claims. To determine this, the invention claimed should be assessed and construed as a whole to see whether it comprises an advance that lies in a non-excluded field. However, as Floyd J observed in paragraph 23 of Kapur v Comptroller-General of Patents [2008] EWHC 649 (Pat), if there are embodiments of a claim that fall within excluded subject matter, the fact that the claim is wide enough to encompass embodiments that are not excluded under s. 1(2) will not be sufficient to save it. The exclusion “will still bite to the extent that excluded subject matter is claimed." - 案例支持電腦軟體專利的可專利性，若電腦軟體執行的方法可核准專利，儲存在媒體中的相關程式也可專利，申請專利範圍中具有一個通常的電腦有時是必要的，但不能僅是一些程序與載體而已。
- 單純的商業模式（business model）並不能獲准專利。使用電腦行使商業方法，電腦本身可以帶來快速與運算，這可能是一些技術效果，但仍不予這類技術可專利性。
"The business method cases can be tricky to analyse by just asking whether the invention has a technical effect or makes a technical contribution. The reason is that computers are self evidently technical in nature. Thus when a business method is implemented on a computer, the patentee has a rich vein of arguments to deploy in seeking to contend that his invention gives rise to a technical effect or makes a technical contribution. For example the computer is said to be a faster, more efficient computerized book keeper than before and surely, says the patentee, that is a technical effect or technical advance. And so it is, in a way, but the law has resolutely sought to hold the line at excluding such things from patents." - 電腦程式界定的軟體方法若具有技術貢獻，已經超越程式本身，為可專利標的。並且，實現軟體方法需要一些習知的電腦硬體，但不會因此具有可專利性。
"In Halliburton Energy Services Inc's Applications [2012] RPC 129, HHJ Birss QC emphasised that “[a] computer programmed to perform a task which makes a contribution to the art which is technical in nature is a patentable invention and may be claimed as such.” Therefore, a computer program that provides a technical contribution will not fall under the exclusion, as it is more than a computer program as such. Although an invention involving a computer is undoubtedly "technical", the mere presence of conventional computing hardware does not of itself mean the invention makes a technical contribution (and so avoids the computer program exclusion) as such hardware will typically not form part of the contribution (see 1.21.1)." - 一個發明，不論是在電腦以外，或是使用電腦解決了技術問題，不會視為電腦軟體本身，
"An invention which either solves a technical problem external to the computer or solves one within the computer was not considered to fall under the computer program exclusion. The particular invention involved improving the operation of a computer by solving a problem arising from the way the computer was programmed (in that case, a tendency to crash due to conflicting library program calls). The court considered that this could be regarded as solving a technical problem within the computer, if it leads to a more reliable computer. Thus, a program that results in a computer running faster or more reliably may be considered to provide a technical contribution, even if the invention addresses a problem in the programming of the computer. The court concluded that such a technical contribution rendered the claim in this case patentable." - 這裡列舉電腦軟體可專利的要件（評估可專利的條件）：
"i.whether the claimed technical effect has a technical effect on a process which is carried on outside the computer (from Vicom)
ii. whether the claimed technical effect operates at the level of the architecture of the computer; that is to say whether the effect is produced irrespective of the data being processed or the applications being run (from IBM T 0006/83, IBM T 0115/85, Merrill Lynch, Symbian)
iii. whether the claimed technical effect results in the computer being made to operate in a new way (from Gale)
iv. whether the program makes the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer (from Vicom, Symbian; as reworded in HTC v Apple)
v. whether the perceived problem is overcome by the claimed invention as opposed to merely being circumvented (from Hitachi T 0258/03 – note that the problem in question must be a technical problem)"
- 取得申請日，申請專利範圍與摘要（甚至摘要並非是專利進入審查的要件，但都會要求補件）並非必要，但要有完整的說明書與費用，申請專利範圍與摘要可以於最早申請日後12個月內，或是申請日後2個月內（最長者）提出，使得可以進入審查與檢索程序。
- 以上期限可以請求延長兩個月，甚至可以提出其他延長期限的理由。
- 可以提出新的請求項內容，使得有兩套專利範圍。
- 如果在專利申請案公開後提出新的請求項內容，仍可以作為審查時的申請專利範圍。
其他重點：
- 申請專利範圍結構：獨立項、附屬項。
- 請求項中不得記載"preferably", "for example", "more particularly"等用語。
- 請求項應記載足夠的內容與元件關聯性，並具有可實施性。
- 若有多項獨立項，若涵蓋了多個類別（apparatus, use, process, product等），則會被檢驗，並要求提出「僅包括一類」的補充版本，但如成對的特徵（接收器、發射器；插頭、插座）仍可在同一案提出，另外，相同物質的不同用途也可於同一案提出申請。
- 申請專利範圍應避免多個無關發明、多個獨立請求項（僅能有一個獨立項，除了上述情況）、無法理解而過於複雜的請求項、過多替代方案與選擇的範圍、附屬項無法限定於所依附的獨立項。
當然也可至Espacenet搜尋：https://worldwide.espacenet.com/advancedSearch?locale=en_EP
補充：（以下內容是因與同事討論議題得出）
問題：英國專利案是否要在申請專利範圍與摘要的元件後加入「元件編號」，也就是對照圖式與說明書的元件編號（element reference）？
根據以上專利實務手冊中的規定，可以在「摘要」中自由地以括號置入圖示中的元件編號，也就是，這並非強制規定。"It should be clearly apparent from the abstract what the or each accompanying figure represents. To aid identification of features mentioned in the abstract, relevant reference numerals which appear in the selected figure(s) should be freely used in the abstract. Numerals which appear only in other drawings should normally not be used, although exceptionally, a numeral which is considered necessary for an understanding of the abstract but appears only in these other drawings, may be referred to. Such reference should be bracketed, eg (29, Fig 16), without any additional wording such as "see" or "not shown". When this expedient is adopted it should be ensured that reference numerals which do appear in the abstract drawing(s) are without brackets."
參考範例：
GB2552702，優先權同樣為GB，因此應為直接申請英國的申請案，請求項中並未見「元件編號」：
GB2552635
以下為從EPO進入英國案範例，看來，請求項就有加入元件編號（但仍有許多例外）：
GB253405
GB2534245，本篇摘要有元件編號，但請求項沒有：
GB2513798
GB2507933
Claims:
1. computer system (300, 400), comprising:
- a device register (320, 410) for creating and
registering one or more device objects (322, 324, 326, 412), wherein at least one device object of the one or more device objects is configured for communicating with a network connector (404) of a sensor appliance (306, 308, 310, 402)via a network connection (312, 414), wherein the device object is configured for exposing at least one parameter (364, 366, 368, 908, 910) of the sensor appliance by declaring its capabilities ;
- an aggregation model (334, 422) for aggregating the at least one parameter of the at least one device objects;
- a set (340, 416) of wiring definitions descriptive of raised events created by changes or updates in the at least one parameter; and
- a wiring broker (328, 420) for updating the aggregation model in accordance with the raised events.
2. The computer system of claim 1, wherein the computer system further comprises a memory (318) for storing machine executable instructions, wherein execution of the instructions cause a processor to:
a. connect (100, 200, 500) a network connectable device (306, 308, 310, 402) to a network (312, 414) using the network connection;
b. visualize the network connectable device on a user interface (362) using an abstraction layer (322, 324, 326, 412), wherein the network connectable device is any one of the following: a sensor, an actor, a multifunction device, and an internet service; c. register (102, 202, 502) the device with the abstraction layer and declaring its capabilities using the device register by connecting the device with the user interface using the abstraction layer;
d. wire the network connectable device using the
abstraction layer for implementing a user defined controller logic with a coherent system of decoupled devices, wherein said abstraction layer provides the infrastructure to receive/poll for status changes of sensors and trigger status change of actors, wherein said abstraction layer is device and/or service independent by using a software abstraction layer.
小結：
有關英國claims撰寫是否要加入元件編號（reference
numbers），我查了一下，如果看到「有元件編號」，大概是EP進入UK案；如果沒有，應該就是直接進入UK的專利案。所以，答案應該是「可以」，但非「強制」。
(updated on Feb. 9, 2018) 從同事由代理人詢問的答案是，針對英國專利申請案，摘要可以加入元件編號，目的是便於理解，但非強制，但不建議在請求項中加入元件編號，因為這沒有任何好處。
(updated on Feb. 9, 2018) 從同事由代理人詢問的答案是，針對英國專利申請案，摘要可以加入元件編號，目的是便於理解，但非強制，但不建議在請求項中加入元件編號，因為這沒有任何好處。
資料參考：
https://www.gov.uk/
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/manual-of-patent-practice-mopp/section-14-the-application
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/英国
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言