本篇關於1978年美國最高法院對於抽象概念的意見，僅供參考，當101議題一直發展下來，40年前的判決可能影響不大，不過卻因為被USPTO最新發布的專利適格性審查指導方針所引述，就來看看囉！
在美國，討論「抽象概念（abstract idea）」時，涉及的是法院如何定義「抽象概念」？
從USPTO於10月再次發布的101審查指導方針來看，頗大的篇幅討論「抽象概念」，更提及最高法院Parker v. Flook判決。
案件資訊：
PARKER v. FLOOK(1978)
Supreme Court: No. 77-642
Argued: April 25, 1978
Decided: June 22, 1978
在1978年Parker v. Flook判決中，當以數學方法解決工程問題（在催化轉化過程（catalytic conversion processes）中更新警報限制）時，但其中用來警報的催化轉化過程為已知技術，若唯一與前案不同的是「數學方程式」，即不符美國35U.S.C.101的可專利性規定。
判決中，在侵權與其他專利性議題討論後，主要議題轉向專利適格性，這裡也引用前例意見：透過發現的自然現象、心智過程與抽象概念等科技的基本工具不得專利。
"`A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.' Le Roy v. Tatham, 14 How. 156, 175. Phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work."
引用前例Benson：專利申請案中的流程包括數學方程式，沒有實質具體的應用，除非連接了計算機，而此專利的效果就是演算法本身。
In Benson we concluded that the process application in fact sought to patent an idea, noting that "the mathematical formula involved here has no substantial practical application except in connection with a digital computer, which means that if the judgment below is affirmed, the patent would wholly preempt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself."
然而，Flook並不認為系爭專利為數學方程式而已，並辯稱所提出解決方案（post-solution activity）並非Benson案所稱演算法本身的技術，但被否決，認為這類解決方案（post-solution activity）可以應用到任何數學方程式，不會因此具有可專利性。（編按，所稱post-solution activity不好翻譯，但判決中說明post-solution activity是指可以轉換不可專利原則為可專利的程序的活動，即便這是習知或是顯而易知的特徵。
也就是，發明中的流程僅包括"已知"自然律或數學方程式，為不可專利的流程，系爭專利不符101規定倒也不是其包括了數學演算法，而是因為這個演算法為習知技術，其相關應用整體來說沒有包括具有專利性的特徵（反過來說，如果發明使用了數學方程式，但具有進步性的應用仍具備可專利性）。
"A competent draftsman could attach some form of post-solution activity to almost any mathematical formula; the Pythagorean theorem would not have been patentable, or partially patentable, because a patent application contained a final step indicating that the formula, when solved, could be usefully applied to existing surveying techniques."
"Our approach to respondent's application is, however, not at all inconsistent with the view that a patent claim must be considered as a whole. Respondent's process is unpatentable under 101, not because it contains a mathematical algorithm as one component, but because once that algorithm is assumed to be within the prior art, the application, considered as a whole, contains no patentable invention."
"Even though a phenomenon of nature or mathematical formula may be well known, an inventive application of the principle may be patented. Conversely, the discovery of such a phenomenon cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application."
如此認為包括數學方法的系爭專利應用了不具「創造性概念（inventive concept）」的習知特徵而不具備可專利性。
my two cents:
以上案例討論僅為記錄，這個上個世紀的判決著重在應用的數學方程式是否為「已知」，整體專利是否具有創造性概念（inventive concept in its application）而論斷整體是否為可專利，這已經與現行將101列為與102/103不同的法律議題的概念不太相同了。
相關參考：
- 美國專利局於10月又更新了專利適格性審查方針（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/10/10.html）
- 美國最高法院判例 - PARKER v. FLOOK (1978)（https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/437/584.html）
- 本部落格相關報導：軟體專利（CAFC判決：CLS Bank v. Alice Corp.）（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2013/05/cafccls-bank-v-alice-corp.html）
- History of Software Patents I（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2009/01/history-of-software-patents-i.html）
參考資料：
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._Flook
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言