僅以功能描述的元件引來不明確的問題 - William Grecia v. Samsung Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2019)

沒有揭露演算法的模組為不明確、僅以功能描述的元件引來不明確的問題，都是本次案例提供的教示  - William Grecia v. Samsung Electronics (Fed. Cir. 2019)。

案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：WILLIAM GRECIA
被告/被上訴人：SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
系爭專利：US8,533,860
判決日：August 20, 2019

本案緣起專利權人William Grecia對Samsung提起專利侵權訴訟，主張侵權的專利項有Claims 21, 22, 24, 25, 27-30，地方法院解釋專利範圍時，認為Claim 21訴諸35 U.S.C. § 112(f)手段功能用語，而接著認為違反35 U.S.C. § 112(b)，專利範圍不明確。

系爭專利US8,533,860關於個人化數位媒體存取系統，為一種存取資料的安全認證技術，也就是數位內容的DRM技術（在數位內容metadata中儲存認證資訊），在'860案中，其中安全機制除了傳統的token外，還加上一個參考值，如裝置序號、網路MAC位址、會員ID等，根據爭議的Claim 21，界定一個電腦產品，描述需要經過認證授權的數位內容存取技術。

21. A computer product comprising a memory, a CPU, a communications console and a non-transitory computer usable medium, the computer usable medium having an operating system stored therein, the computer product further comprising a customization module, the computer product authorizing access to digital content, wherein the digital content is at least one of an application, a video, or a video game, wherein the digital content is at least one of encrypted or not encrypted, the computer product configured to perform the steps of:

receiving the digital content access request from the communications console, the access request being a read or write request of metadata of the digital content, the metadata of the digital content being one or more of a database or storage in connection to the computer product, the request comprising a verification token corresponding to the digital content, the verification token is handled by the user as a redeemable instrument, wherein the verification token comprises at least one of a purchase permission, a rental permission, or a membership permission, wherein the at least one of purchase permission, rental permission, or membership permission being represented by one or more of a tag, a letter, a number, a combination of letters and numbers, a successful payment, a rights token, a phrase, a name, a membership credential, an image, a logo, a service name, an authorization, a list, an interface button, a downloadable program, or the redeemable instrument;

authenticating the verification token;

establishing a connection with the communications console, wherein the communications console is a combination of a graphic user interface (GUI) and an Applications Programmable Interface (API) wherein the API is obtained from a verified web service, the web service capable of facilitating a two way data exchange to complete a verification process wherein the data exchange session comprises at least one identification reference;

requesting the at least one identification reference from the at least one communications console, wherein the identification reference comprises one or more of a verified web service account identifier, letter, number, rights token, e-mail, password, access time, serial number, address, manufacturer identification, checksum, operating system version, browser version, credential, cookie, or key, or ID;

receiving the at least one identification reference from the communications console; and

writing at least one of the verification token or the identification reference into the said metadata.

根據Claim 21內容，前言描述電腦產品，有CPU、通訊主機、儲存媒體等，還有一個客製化模組（customization module），就是這個「customization module」讓解釋Claim 21訴諸了35 U.S.C. § 112(f)規定的手段功能用語的解釋原則，"customization module"在說明書中的解釋是讓使用者客製化數位內容的使用者存取面板，但認為不明確，另也認定"metadata"用語不明確。專利權人上訴CAFC。

CAFC階段：

上訴議題就是專利範圍訴諸35 U.S.C. § 112(f)導致不符35 U.S.C. § 112(b)的決定，判斷專利範圍是否以35 U.S.C. § 112(f)解釋，根據案例Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015)，其中原則是「是否相關領域一般技術人員可以理解專利範圍文字具有足夠明確的結構特徵」。

"To deter-mine whether § 112, ¶ 6 applies to a claim limitation, the essential inquiry is “whether the words of the claim are understood by persons of ordinary skill in the art to have a sufficiently definite meaning as the name for structure.”"

- 可參考本部落格報導：功能性用語認定以及說明書寫作標準的討論 - Richard A. Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2015)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/06/richard-williamson-v-citrix-online-llc.html）

也就是說，如果從專利範圍文字讀出的意思無法讓人理解到其結構（或動作、材料，根據35 U.S.C. § 112(f)），就訴諸35 U.S.C. § 112(f)解釋，如以means, module, unit等不是直接描述結構的用語來描述的技術元件。



因此，本次系爭專利Claim 21中的"customization module"並不是結構用語，法院稱為「black box recitation of structure」，就如傳統認知為手段功能用語的"means"，應該參考專利說明書的描述，專利權人還主張Claims 23, 24提供了Claim 21的結構特徵，解釋customization module為客製化標籤與使用者存取面板！

23. The computer product according to claim 21, wherein the customization module customizes the tag.
24. The computer product according to claim 21, wherein the customization module customizes a user access panel.

系爭專利說明書的描述也差不多是如claim 23, 24的描述。

如此，法院認為，claims 23, 24內容並沒有描述在claim 21，仍無法不以35 U.S.C. § 112(f)解釋專利範圍，也無法讓相關領域一般技術人員可以理解為特定演算法或結構，且附屬項的描述也僅是定義"customization module"本身的"功能"（純粹功能性描述）。



又因為系爭專利說明書的描述就如claims 23, 24一般，沒有對應"customization module"的結構描述，使得"customization module"落於「純粹功能描述」的不明確問題（35 U.S.C. § 112(b)）。

專利權人對以上意見投降，就轉向主張整個claim 21都是在描述"customization module"的運作，但經法院判斷，Claim 21並非如專利權人主張為描述"customization module"的運作，如此，當申請專利範圍與說明書都未能描述讓相關領域一般技術人員可以足夠明確地理解出結構特徵時，顯得系爭專利範圍Claim 21的"customization module"就是一個黑盒子，導致專利範圍不明確（35 U.S.C. § 112(b)）。

結論：
"Because the ’860 specification merely describes the results of customization without any algorithm for configuring the claimed module to obtain those results, we agree with the district court that the specification fails to disclose the “corresponding structure” required under § 112, ¶ 6, thus rendering claim 21 indefinite under § 112, ¶ 2."

my two cents:
一個侵權訴訟變成一個需要司法解決的「專利範圍解釋」議題，最後還判決專利不明確，真是讓人洩氣，我覺得專利範圍沒有"太"不明確，法院見解雖有邏輯，卻是不夠高度。

專利撰寫時，會有自己定義的用語，如果不是在相關領域為已經定義好的用語，常常會落於「純粹的功能描述」，也就會有112(f)的問題，這時，除了避免使用外，不能不用時，需要在說明書中明確描述其結構特徵、動作，或是材料（視領域而定）。

遇到這類OA，如果說明書沒有明確的結構描述，就刪除這個用語，改以動作描述，常常可以克服。

從判決文中看到專利權人反駁提出的案例，雖被法院認為不適用本案，卻是可以看到一些"正面"（明確）的範例：

- Zeroclick, LLC v. Apple Inc., 891 F.3d 1003 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
此案提到"program"與"user interface code"等，但法院認為明確，因為這就是公知的GUI程式，沒有「黑盒子」。

- Apple Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
此案例提到"heuristic"（啟發式的），這個抽象的字眼在法院判決中判定為非手段功能用語，因為沒有使用"means"等會訴諸112(f)的用語，且這個"heuristic"具有已知的意思（known meaning），這是明確的，法院當時的意見是"Moreover, in Apple, we noted that the “heuristic” term at issue had a “known meaning” with an explanation of how to achieve the output of the claimed “heuristic” based on specific rules such as the initial angle of finger contact with the screen, the number of fingers making contact, and the direction of movement of finger contact."。

判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-1019.Opinion.8-20-2019.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/pggb5ih4r8u103yswz5jrm7vksa567kd）

資料參考：
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/08/customization-indefinite-disclosed.html

Ron