本案討論「誰是發明人（102(f)）」議題，USPTO、PTAB與CAFC法官對此都有一致的見解，值得參考與警惕。
In re VerHoef (Fed. Cir. 2018)案件資訊：
上訴人：JEFF H. VERHOEF
判決日：May 3, 2018
系爭申請案：13/328,201
本案緣起專利申請人Jeff H. VerHoef對於PTAB作出確認USPTO駁回專利範圍的決定提起上訴，核駁理由主要是依據35 U.S.C. § 102(f)，認為VerHoef並非系爭申請案的唯一發明人。
"... that VerHoef did not solely invent the claimed subject matter of the ’201 application on which he claimed sole inventorship."
很特別地，原本USPTO"第一次初駁"時，核駁理由有102(b)，但也有"可核准範圍"；在後續的核駁中增加了102(f)議題，因為審查委員從Lamb案US2013/0152870得出「發明人不實」的結論；到了終駁理由還是包括102(b)與102(f)兩個議題，經申請人提出訴願，在PTAB訴願階段，否決USPTO作出不符102(b)的理由，但在102(f)議題則繼續發酵。
13/328,201關於一種狗狗行動裝置（dog mobility device），主要圖式如下：
US2013/0152870（"Lamb"）有相同的狗狗行動裝置「圖式」：
兩件案子內容與圖式實質相同，USPTO即發出102(f)核駁意見：
PTAB意見中討論到「誰是發明人」的相關規定，關於35 U.S.C. § 116：
「所謂共同發明人（Joint Inventor）？就是(1)貢獻發明的重要部分的概念與實現；(2)對於申請專利範圍中（即便為不重要的部分）的貢獻；(3)超越僅解釋發明人所知到的發明概念與相關習知技術的人。」
CAFC階段：
上訴議題僅針對pre-AIA 102(f)。
系爭申請案發明人VerHoef提出宣誓，宣稱自己的狗Reilly經歷了手術後便在行走上有困難，因此發明人系爭申請案所記載的發明。
其實，在最初概念下提出的申請案將VerHoef與Lamb都列為發明人，但是兩位之間產生問題（不合），隨後撤銷最初的專利申請案，而重送一件幾乎一樣的專利申請案，但發明人僅列出VerHoef一位，同時，Lamb也自己送一件。
在PTAB階段，PTAB判斷專利中不可或缺的「關鍵技術元件（essential element）」為「paw loop」，但VerHoef卻不是這個元件的唯一發明人，對於發明沒有"intellectual domination"（智慧的支配），與Lamb應為共同發明人，因不符102(f)駁回。
同樣地，CAFC法官有類似見解，雖然法律上要認定共同發明人有困難，不容易真正地得出誰對某個元件有「智慧的支配」，只好就客觀證據來看。
在PTAB委員的意見中，可以學到一些事，即便發明人並非構想每個特徵，但是只要對整體發明過程中有智慧上的支配，就可以稱唯一發明人：
"... for the proposition that a person may be named as a sole inventor even if that person did not conceive of each feature of the claimed invention, as long as the person maintained “intellectual domination” and control over the inventive process."
即便如此，法院依照USPTO/PTAB的決定仍認定Lamb為共同發明人，因為對其中關鍵元件有貢獻。這是法院引用前例，認為發明人對特定問題提出了解決方案，提出了發明概念，而不僅是提出一般目標與一個研究計畫而已，因此不認為本案僅唯一發明人。
並定義出「共同發明人」，不必要是有同等貢獻的人：(1)貢獻一些發明中的重要事項與實現出來（reduction to practice）；(2)對於申請專利範圍中不重要部分的貢獻；(3)超越僅解釋發明人所理解與目前已知技術的層次的人。
一些重要結論：
補充一：
[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(f)]
35 U.S.C. 102 (PRE‑AIA) CONDITIONS FOR PATENTABILITY; NOVELTY AND LOSS OF RIGHT TO PATENT.
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
...
(f) he did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented, or
...
（https://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102_(pre‑AIA).html）
然而，102(f)在AIA後已刪除，但在AIA的「first inventor to file」的精神下，專利/專利申請案仍會因為發明人不實而不准專利。
在AIA的「Derivation proceedings（我稱為"申請人調查程序"，多數翻為不太懂的"派生程序"）」程序成為「inventorship」的救濟程序，一些先前報導：
- 第一件申請人調查程序討論 - DER2014-00002（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/09/der2014-00002.html）
- 美國專利改革法案下的DERIVATION PROCEEDING（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/09/derivation-proceeding.html）
35 U.S.C. 135 DERIVATION PROCEEDINGS .
(a) INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDING.--An applicant for patent may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding in the Office. The petition shall set forth with particularity the basis for finding that an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed. Any such petition may be filed only within the 1–year period beginning on the date of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the invention, shall be made under oath, and shall be supported by substantial evidence. Whenever the Director determines that a petition filed under this subsection demonstrates that the standards for instituting a derivation proceeding are met, the Director may institute a derivation proceeding. The determination by the Director whether to institute a derivation proceeding shall be final and nonappealable.
補充二：[35 U.S.C. § 116]
35 U.S. Code § 116 - Inventors
(a)Joint Inventions.—
When an invention is made by two or more persons jointly, they shall apply for patent jointly and each make the required oath, except as otherwise provided in this title. Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent.
(b)Omitted Inventor.—
If a joint inventor refuses to join in an application for patent or cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, the application may be made by the other inventor on behalf of himself and the omitted inventor. The Director, on proof of the pertinent facts and after such notice to the omitted inventor as he prescribes, may grant a patent to the inventor making the application, subject to the same rights which the omitted inventor would have had if he had been joined. The omitted inventor may subsequently join in the application.
(c)Correction of Errors in Application.—
Whenever through error a person is named in an application for patent as the inventor, or through error an inventor is not named in an application, the Director may permit the application to be amended accordingly, under such terms as he prescribes.
補充三：
Reduction to Practice - Univ. Pittsburgh v. Hendrick (Fed. Cir. 2009)案例討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/08/reduction-to-practice-univ-pittsburgh-v.html）
誰是發明人？
幾個原則可以參考：
證明有發明完成時的揭露內容。
"The test for conception is whether the inventor had an idea that was definite and permanent enough that one skilled in the art could understand the invention; the inventor must prove his conception by corroborating evidence, preferably by showing contemporaneous disclosures."
發明的發現算是付諸實現的一部分。
"He need only show that he had the complete mental picture and could describe it with particularity; the discovery that the invention actually works is part of its reduction to practice."
每個發明人應對發明有貢獻。
"In a joint invention, each inventor must contribute to the joint arrival at a definite and permanent idea of the invention as it will be used in practice."
USPTO初駁/答辯/終駁/訴願文/PTAB決定/上訴文：
https://app.box.com/s/25a16cqh4s6p8pn44f07eiicwa8ayo36（備份）
判決文：
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/17-1976.Opinion.5-2-2018.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/gt27gg5u32rhboq1djalcabgdws2eljs）
my two cents:
確實不容易得到「誰是真的發明人」，所以專利系統設計了「先申請」的概念，本案好死不死，就是兩個發明人申請了一樣的內容，產生爭議，要不然審查委員與法官還不見得可以知道本案並非只有唯一發明人。
其實，法官都認為「intellectual domination」定義很模糊，但是客觀證據指出關鍵元件，而此關鍵元件並非僅唯一發明人。
所謂「關鍵元件」為對照先前技術得出，而且可能是答辯過程中不斷強調的特點。
本案教導我們是，一個發明是由許多元件與步驟的組合，「發明人」不見得是所有元件的發明人，但卻需要是對其中關鍵元件（或組合）具有「智慧的支配」（“intellectual domination”）。
當然，在一些專利程序上，如申請人調查程序，都有可能在inventorship議題提出解決方案，只是這仍是個難題，如果這些制度都建立在「誠實」的基礎上，還是可以信任的。
資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2018/05/inventors-cooperate-nobody.html
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言