案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：SECURED MAIL SOLUTIONS LLC
被告/被上訴人：UNIVERSAL WILDE, INC.
系爭專利：
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,032, 7,818,268, and 8,073,787 are the “Intelligent Mail Barcode” patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,260,629 and 8,429,093 are the “QR Code” patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,910,860 and 9,105,002 are the “Personalized URL” patents.
判決日：October 16, 2017
本案緣起原告/專利權人Secured Mail Solutions LLC對地方法院同意以不符101規定議題的請願的決定（表示地院判決專利不具專利適格性）提出上訴。
系爭專利分別關於電子郵件認證、QR碼與個人化URL的技術，以'032為例，在認證程序中，通過電子郵件傳送認證資料，讓接收端通過信件內確認的動作達到身份認證的目的。（編按，這常見於利用電子郵件註冊特定網路服務的認證方式）
這些系爭專利各有專利範圍，如'032的Claim 1揭示使用單一條碼認證實體信件來信者的方法，'093與'002則是有關提供電子內容給郵件接收者的技術，前者以QR Code提供內容，後者則應用了個人化URL。
'032的Claim 1. A method for using a single barcode to verify the authenticity of and identify a sender of a physical mail object that is being sent from said sender to a recipient via a mail carrier, comprising:
a sender of a physical mail object generating a unique identifier, wherein said unique identifier comprises a numeric value, can be used by said sender to identify said physical mail object, and is distinguishable from a second unique identifier that can be used by said sender to identify a second physical mail object that is being sent from said sender to said recipient via said mail carrier;
encoding at least said unique identifier, sender data and recipient data into a single barcode, wherein said sender data identifies said sender of said physical mail object and said recipient data identifies a recipient of said physical mail object;
storing at least a portion of said encoded data in a database, said portion comprising at least said unique identifier, said sender data and said recipient data;
printing said single barcode on said physical mail object;
submitting said physical mail object to a postal carrier;
scanning by a scanner said single barcode to acquire said encoded data; and
comparing by a computer at least a portion of said encoded data to data stored in said database to verify the authenticity of said physical mail object, wherein said at least a portion of said encoded data comprises at least said unique identifier, said sender data and said recipient data and can be used by said postal carrier to identify said sender of said physical mail object.
'093的Claim 1. A method for providing electronic data to a recipient of a mail object, comprising:
Generating, by a processor, a barcode for a mail object, said barcode including at least a first set of mail data, said first set of mail data including data corresponding to said recipient of said mail object;
affixing said barcode to said mail object;
submitting said mail object to a mail carrier for delivery to said recipient of said mail object;
receiving said first set of mail data, including data corresponding to said recipient of said mail object, from a reception device of said recipient via a network;
providing said electronic data to said reception device via said network in response to receiving said first set of mail data, said electronic data including a content of said mail object;
wherein said reception device displays said electronic data to a recipient of said mail object by displaying said electronic data on a screen of said reception device.
'002的Claim 1. A method for providing electronic data to a recipient of a mail object, comprising:
using an output device to affix a single set of mail ID data to said mail object, said single set of mail ID data including at least recipient data, said recipient data comprising a personalized network address associated with said recipient of said mail object;
submitting said mail object to a mail carrier for delivery to said recipient of said mail object;
receiving said recipient data from a reception device of said recipient via a network; and
providing by at least one processor said electronic data to said reception device via said network in response to receiving said recipient data, said electronic data comprising a sender's web page that identifies said recipient of said mail object and includes data corresponding to a content of said mail object;
wherein said electronic data is configured to be displayed to said recipient via a web browser on a display of said reception device.
看來這些應用在信件的電腦技術都會面對35 U.S.C. § 101議題，自然也是應用TWO-STEP測試，系爭專利發明先被認定為抽象概念(step 2A)，因此考量專利範圍中是否具有足以轉換抽象概念為可專利的應用的進步特徵（inventive concept）(step 2B)。
發明是否符合35 U.S.C. § 101規定的可專利標的，邏輯大概是：
--------------------
(1)是否為新與有用的流程、機器、製程或物質成份？
(2)是否落於法定例外的標的：自然律、自然現象與抽象概念？
(3)依據Alice判例，採用two-step檢測。
發明是否涉及法定例外？
如果不是，就通過two-step檢測。
如果是，進一步判斷專利範圍是否包括足以將不可專利的發明轉換為可專利應用的進步特徵（inventive concept）？（"whether the claims contain an “inventive concept” sufficient to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.”"）
補充：USPTO於年初新版指導方針將step 2A分為兩個步驟：
(1) 是否申請專利範圍界定的發明引述法定例外？其中，抽象概念可以分為：數學概念（mathematical concepts）、一些組織人類行為的方法（certain methods of organizing human activity）以及心智活動（mental processes）等。
(2) 如果法定例外的事項可以整合到實際的應用（integrated into a practical application）上，引述了法定例外的相關申請專利範圍不算涉及（not directed to）法定例外。
- USPTO的2019開年禮之一 - 適格性指導方針（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/01/uspto2019.html）
--------------------
根據地方法院對本案的意見是，全部系爭專利都是有關資訊標記的技術，涉及抽象概念。在專利權人Secured Mail上訴意見中，搬出Enfish案例，認為系爭專利是改善電腦技術的發明，且當年CAFC在Enfish的意見中還認為地方法院對於抽象概念的評斷標準太高。
不過，本案中，CAFC認為地院判決系爭專利為抽象概念，為101規定的法定例外，這是合理普遍的標準（a reasonably high level of generality）。並且，法院也澄清，Enfish案涉及電腦本身技術的改善（有關電腦記憶體中資料管理），卻不是利用電腦技術實現其他經濟活動或是如本案資訊標識的技術類型。
- 參考報導：改善電腦技術的軟體方法具有可專利性？ - Enfish LLC v Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2016) （http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/05/enfish-llc-v-microsoft-fed-cir-2016.html）
Alice Step Two
若專利無疑地涉及抽象概念，即討論下一步，判斷專利是否轉換抽象概念為可專利應用。"In step two, we consider the elements of the claims to determine whether they transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea."
- 參考報導：應用習知裝置執行原本的工作不會轉換抽象為可專利的發明 - Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank (CAFC 2014)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/contect-extraction-v-wells-fargo-bank.html）
十分明確地，這個判斷步驟是要找專利範圍中是否具備可以實質超越抽象概念本身的「inventive concept（進步特徵/進步概念）」？
- 參考報導：關於編解碼的可專利性 - Recognicorp v. Nintendo (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/01/recognicorp-v-nintendo-fed-cir-2017.html）
（此案提到："地院認為專利範圍為演算法本身，或是明顯為一般解決方案的活動而已（pre-solution activity and post-solution activity），並沒有足以讓抽象概念轉換為可專利標的的進步特徵/發明概念（inventive concept）。但CAFC提醒：不是因為引述了數學方法就會直接判斷沒有inventive concept，這應該是step 2A的討論，本案是因為專利範圍中的數學方法僅是將資料轉換成另一形式的資料。"）
因此，議題成為在專利範圍中是否可以找到具備「inventive concept」的證據？
這裡很明確地說，僅引述一般電腦或是加入"apply it with a computer"語句，不能轉換抽象概念為可專利發明。
對於barcode專利：
根據專利權人Secured Mail的意見，也如法院知道的，系爭專利在寄件者端產生條碼並附加在信件上為系爭專利發明的核心，條碼中記載了識別符、寄件者資料、接收者資料以及傳遞方法等（可能形成inventive concept的條件），但法院認為，專利範圍的描述並沒有解釋如何產生這些資訊，甚至要傳遞這些資訊也不用轉成條碼，使得判斷從專利範圍無法得出哪些特徵為「inventive concept」（"The claim language does not provide any specific showing of what is inventive about the identifier or about the technology used to generate and process it."）。
對於QR Code與personalized URL專利：
因為涉及網路技術，Secured Mail引用案例DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels. com，認為，以特定方式自動從多個來源產生網頁，以解決網路技術的問題，為可專利標的！
- 參考報導：商業方法可專利性？電腦軟體專利的生機 - DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (Fed. 2014)案例討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/12/ddr-holdings-v-hotelscom-fed-2014.html）
CAFC的回應是，系爭專利缺乏技術細節，找不到以特定方法解決特定問題的技術特徵，認為其中技術為已知與習知，並採用一般通訊技術，因此並未具備inventive concept。
CAFC結論：
"We see no inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea."
CAFC判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1728.Opinion.10-12-2017.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/w27nv8udachbk1667w63uynzdz44o7hr）
my two cents:
要克服那麼多的101爭議與阻礙，專利範圍（與說明書）的撰寫變得是最根本的問題，看來，避免發明僅是簡單利用電腦，專利範圍要有具備inventive concept的證據，要有特定可解決特定問題的方法的描述，就是專利範圍（與其說明書）要有足夠的細節，克服101問題的機會才會比較大！
本部落格算是盡量嚴密跟隨與101有關的議題，幾乎判決中提到的引用前例都可在本部落格中找到，然而101議題雖原則與邏輯不變，也可能常常是老梗常談，但隨時有新增變化（即便很微小），算是專利這個領域最有趣的議題之一：https://enpan.blogspot.com/search/label/101。
看過很多案例引用Enfish案，但要注意的是，這是適用「電腦本身技術的改善」，不適用「應用電腦實現的技術」。
註記：
這件事證明我的記憶力很淺，本案已經在今年2月分析與報導過，但現在（April 30, 2019）才發現，這個案例竟然研究兩次，還沒有意識到。
沒有足夠的細節證明具有inventive concept - Secured Mail Solutions v. Universal Wilde (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/02/secured-mail-solutions-v-universal_11.html）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言