「設計選擇」為顯而易知的案例討論 - Ex parte Spangler (2019)

本篇為根據USPTO 10/16/2019 標註案例之一：

關於「design choice（設計選擇）」，如果發明的特徵僅是「設計選擇」之一，表示沒有對發明本身有實質的影響，就不會因為有差異而具有非顯而易知性（non-obvious）。

- 可參考部落格文章：發明僅設計選擇是顯而易見的技術 - Ex parte Gehring (PTAB, 2016)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/11/ex-parte-gehring-ptab-2016.html）

反之，如果發明中與前案不同的特徵，即便很微小，如果產生實質差異，就可能不是「設計選擇」之一，如果審查意見認為這仍是顯而易知，則可能是審查委員的後見之明。

- 可參考過去報導：一件訴願先行案例報導（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/11/blog-post_17.html）

- 「設計選擇」為"非"顯而易知的案例討論 - Ex parte Maeda (2012)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/10/ex-parte-maeda-2012.html）

---USPTO訊息---

PTAB designates two decisions as informative regarding design choice

Ex parte Spangler, Appeal No. 2018-003800 (Feb. 20, 2019) This decision affirms the examiner’s obviousness rejection, which determined that claimed relative lengths and locations of two claimed components were a matter of obvious design choice because the specification did not suggest that the relative lengths or locations were critical to the claimed invention. Ex parte Maeda, Appeal No. 2010-009814 (Oct. 23, 2012) This decision reverses the examiner’s obviousness rejection, which determined that the location of a claimed component of a manufacturing apparatus was a matter of obvious design choice because moving the component to the claimed location would result in a different function than shown in the prior art. Learn more about these informative decisions on the USPTO website.

---------------------

Ex parte Spangler, Appeal No. 2018-003800 (Feb. 20, 2019)

此案為2019年2月20日作出的訴願決定，案件資訊：
系爭申請案：11/679,958
核駁引證案：Bouchard (US 5,971,703)、Stec (US 6,171,058 Bl)
引用法條：35 U.S.C. § 103(a)

申請案關於一種用於渦輪發動機部件的羽狀密封件，也就是渦輪中葉片的外部空氣密封件，目的是防止氣流外洩。



代表專利範圍：
1. A featherseal for engagement with a turbine engine component comprising:

a featherseal having a first side, a second side opposite said first side, a first end, and a second end opposite said first end, wherein said first side is normal to said first and second ends, said second side is parallel to said first side, and said second end is parallel to said first end, wherein a longitudinal axis is defined between said first and second sides, said longitudinal axis being parallel to said first side and said second side, and wherein said first side is a linear longitudinal side defined by a continuous, straight edge without any tabs, said first side extending parallel to said longitudinal axis from said first end to said second end;

a first lateral tab extending from said second side in a direction transverse to said longitudinal axis, wherein said first lateral tab is provided a first distance from said first end; and

a second lateral tab which extends from said second side in a direction transverse to said longitudinal axis, said first lateral tab spaced from said second lateral tab, said first lateral tab being shorter, relative to said longitudinal axis, than said second lateral tab, and wherein said second lateral tab is provided a second distance from said second end, said second distance greater than said first distance.

根據USPTO審查意見，審查委員先前技術Bouchard揭露了這個羽狀密封件以及相關結構，其中的差異則引用另一前案Stec，認為即便有差異，如其中相對長度與沿著羽狀密封件的凸出部（tab）的位置，仍認為系爭案發明相對這兩個前案組合後為顯而易知。

主要理由是，系爭案說明書並未記載以上差異解決了任何問題以及特定目的，僅是「改變大小與位置」的「設計選擇（design choice）」，判定為顯而易知。

即便申請人答辯時強調這些差異的重要性，PTAB仍同意審委的意見："... agree with the Examiner that Appellants' Specification "does not provide support for criticality for the length of the tabs or the spacing of the tabs from the seal ends."



my two cents:
事實上，專利申請人在答辯時並未質疑審查委員結合先前技術的合理性，而僅一昧地提出「差異」，加上說明書並未認真地對待這些「差異」，也就是這些差異在申請時是微不足道的特徵，因此判定為設計選擇之一。

USPTO對此案給了一個註腳：此案發明中關於特定特徵的「相對長度與位置」僅是顯而易知的「設計選擇」，理由是說明書沒有說明這個「相對長度或位置」對於發明的重要性。

專利說明書不容易面面俱到，只能說盡力揭露，加上，可能仍需要對前案有比較好的理解，才能放對重心。

官方檔案：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Ex%20parte%20Spangler%20%28Appeal%202018-003800%29.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/1wmnc968tztfwn65pcnr0xpe0apn4si5）

Ron