一般來說，若請求項出現商標用語，可能會有不明確、模糊的問題而遭遇35 U.S.C. 112(b)核駁。
[台灣]
如我國專利法審查基準第二篇有關「違反可據以實現要件的審查」規定，「說明書中的計量單位應適當使用國家法定度量衡單位（參照度量衡法）或國際單位制計量單位，必要時得使用該領域公知的其他計量單位。此外，應避免使用註冊商標、商品名稱（trade name）或其他類似文字表示材料或物品；若必須使用時，應註明其型號、規格、性能及製造廠商等，以符合可據以實現要件。」
[美國]
MPEP 2173.05(u)給了我們一些原則，請求項中出現商標或特定商品名稱時，本身並不見得不適當，不見得會遇到112(b)核駁。
一般來說，商標或商品名稱會讓人連結到特定商品來源（如看到Windows不僅指某個作業系統，也會連結到Microsoft）。
（不適當用法）若商標用語用在請求項中是用來識別一個特別的材料或產品，而成為限制條件，這不符35 U.S.C. 112(b)。相關案例為：Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982)。（可參考部落格內容：專利範圍使用商標用語的討論 - MPEP 2173.05(U)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/02/mpep-217305u.html））
（問題）如果商標用語用在請求項中不是作為限制條件，那為何要用？
一些答案在MPEP 608.01(V) 。
- 以下所謂「標誌（mark）」指：trademark, service mark, collective mark, certification mark，與商品名稱（trade name）其實是可以用在專利申請案中的，用以識別物品、服務或組織，條件是：(A)這個標誌的意義已經明確定義，可以使得專利範圍與說明書明確而可據以實施，仍符合112規定；或是(B)這個標誌為在相關領域中為已知，並充分定義，可以使用在請求項與說明書中。
- 專利範圍與說明書的撰寫原則是明確，若使用商標有疑慮，還不如以正面，準確，可理解的語言描述技術特徵。
- 如果標誌代表的商品、服務或組織所代表的意思夠明確，用大寫字母表示，而能區隔其他一般描述，可以允許使用在專利範圍中。
"If the product, service, or organization to which a mark refers is set forth in such language that its identity is clear, examiners are authorized to permit the use of the mark if it is distinguished from common descriptive nouns by capitalization."
例如，專利使用了藍牙通訊協定中的特性，不得不用藍牙通訊表示此技術，仍應允許使用，否則用一般無線通訊描述即可。
- 若標誌定義明確，可以使用，但指涉到商品、服務或組織的特徵，應該要有更多描述，避免112核駁。
"If a mark or trade name has a fixed and definite meaning, it constitutes sufficient identification unless some specific characteristic of the product, service, or organization is involved in the invention such that further description is necessary to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112."
- 這些判斷應該case-by-case判斷。案例：In re Metcalfe, 410 F.2d 1378, 161 USPQ 789 (CCPA 1969)。
- 如果要修正專利內容來描述這個標誌名稱，要小心不要有超過原本意含的新事物。
- 如果對於特定標誌名稱描述不夠明確，可能會遭遇核駁。
- 雖然仍是允許請求項或說明書使用標誌名稱，但仍應尊重標誌的專屬性，例如用大寫字表示，不能減損標誌的意思。
- 不允許這樣用："the product X (a descriptive name) commonly known as Y (trade name or mark)"；可以這樣用："the product X (a descriptive name) sold under the trademark Y"。
- 應避免連結"type"使用，如"Band-Aid type bandage."。
- 必要使用標誌時，應註明這是哪間公司的註冊商標（應給於商標擁有者應有的尊重）。
[法條]
MPEP 2173.05(u) Trademarks or Trade Names in a Claim
The presence of a trademark or trade name in a claim is not, per se, improper under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, but the claim should be carefully analyzed to determine how the mark or name is used in the claim. It is important to recognize that a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. See definitions of trademark and trade name in MPEP § 608.01(v).
If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. In fact, the value of a trademark would be lost to the extent that it became descriptive of a product, rather than used as an identification of a source or origin of a product. Thus, the use of a trademark or trade name in a claim to identify or describe a material or product would not only render a claim indefinite, but would also constitute an improper use of the trademark or trade name.
If a trademark or trade name appears in a claim and is not intended as a limitation in the claim, the question of why it is in the claim should be addressed. If its presence in the claim causes confusion as to the scope of the claim, then the claim should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
MPEP 608.01(V) MARKS USED IN COMMERCE AND TRADE NAMES
I. PERMISSIBLE USE IN PATENT APPLICATIONS
A mark as defined by 15 U.S.C. 1127 (i.e., trademark, service mark, collective mark, or certification mark) or trade name may be used in a patent application to identify an article or product, service, or organization if:
(A) its meaning is established by an accompanying definition in the specification which is sufficiently descriptive, enabling, precise and definite such that a claim including the mark or trade name complies with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, or
(B) its meaning is well-known to one skilled in the relevant art and is satisfactorily defined in the literature.
See, e.g., United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 74 F3d 1209, ____ n.6, 37 USPQ2d 1388, 1392 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Condition (A) or (B) must be met at the time of filing of the complete application.
The relationship between a mark or trade name and the product, service, or organization it identifies is sometimes indefinite, uncertain, and arbitrary. For example, the formula or characteristics of a product may change from time to time and yet it may continue to be sold under the same mark or trade name. In patent specifications, the details of the product, service, or organization identified by a mark or trade name should be set forth in positive, exact, intelligible language, so that there will be no uncertainty as to what is meant. Arbitrary marks or trade names which are liable to mean different things at the pleasure of the owner do not constitute such language. Ex Parte Kattwinkle, 12 USPQ 11 (Bd. App. 1931).
If the product, service, or organization to which a mark refers is set forth in such language that its identity is clear, examiners are authorized to permit the use of the mark if it is distinguished from common descriptive nouns by capitalization. See subsection II, below. If a mark or trade name has a fixed and definite meaning, it constitutes sufficient identification unless some specific characteristic of the product, service, or organization is involved in the invention such that further description is necessary to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112. In that event, as also in those cases where the mark or trade name has no fixed and definite meaning, identification by scientific or other explanatory language is necessary. See, e.g., United States Gypsum Co. v. National Gypsum Co., 74 F3d 1209, ____ n.6, 37 USPQ2d 1388, 1392 n. 6 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re Gebauer-Fuelnegg, 121 F.2d 505, 50 USPQ 125 (CCPA 1941).
The matter of sufficiency of disclosure must be decided on an individual case-by-case basis. In re Metcalfe, 410 F.2d 1378, 161 USPQ 789 (CCPA 1969).
Where the identification of a mark or trade name is introduced by amendment, it must be restricted to the characteristics of the product, service, or organization known at the time the application was filed to avoid any question of new matter.
If proper identification of the product, service, or organization identified by a mark or a trade name is omitted from the specification and such identification is deemed necessary under the principles set forth above, the examiner should hold the disclosure insufficient and reject, on the ground of insufficient disclosure, any claims based on the identification of the product, service, or organization merely by mark or trade name. If, for example, a product cannot be otherwise defined, an amendment defining the process of its manufacture may be permitted unless such amendment would result in the introduction of new matter. Such amendments must be supported by satisfactory showings establishing that the specific nature or process of manufacture of the product as set forth in the amendment was known at the time of filing of the application.
II. PROPRIETARY NATURE OF MARKS USED IN COMMERCE
Although the use of marks having definite meanings is permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected. Marks should be identified by capitalizing each letter of the mark (in the case of word or letter marks) or otherwise indicating the description of the mark (in the case of marks in the form of a symbol or device or other nontextual form). Every effort should be made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as marks.
Examiners may conduct a search for registered marks by using the Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) which is available on the USPTO website to determine whether an apparent or identified mark in the patent application is a registered mark or to what particular goods a registered mark applies.
Form paragraph 6.20 may be used to inform applicant of the proprietary nature of marks used in commerce.
The examiner should not permit the use of language such as "the product X (a descriptive name) commonly known as Y (trade name or mark)" since such language does not bring out the fact that the latter is a trade name or mark. Language such as "the product X (a descriptive name) sold under the trademark Y" is permissible.
The use of a mark in the title of an application should be avoided as well as the use of a mark coupled with the word "type", e.g., "Band-Aid type bandage."
In the event that a registered mark is a "symbol or device" depicted in a drawing, either the brief description of the drawing or the detailed description of the drawing should specify that the "symbol or device" is a registered mark of Company X. The owner of a mark may be identified in the specification.
Technology Center Directors should reply to all complaint letters regarding the misuse of marks used in commerce and forward a copy of the complaint letter and reply to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy. Where a letter demonstrates the misuse of a mark in a patent application publication, the Office should, where the application is still pending, ensure that the mark is replaced by appropriate generic terminology.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言