[本案原文為德文，以下報導為依照Google英文翻譯的內容]
本案為歐洲專利無效異議案，案件資訊：
專利權人：Behr France Rouffach SAS
異議人：RENAULT s.a.s.
系爭專利：EPO Patent No. 1,728,658
系爭專利關於具有兩個鼓風機的汽車冷氣：
異議人提出的主要引證前案：D01: EP-A-0 867 319, D04: FR-A-2 750 461, 以及D16: EP-A-1 520 991，列舉我比較看得懂的前案圖示：
根據訴願決定，在口審（Oral proceedings）議題中，其中之一為兩方費用分擔，而本篇主要討論為「圖式修正」的議題。
專利範圍第1項描述汽車冷氣中雙鼓風機的機構，有馬達、兩個可移除縱向葉輪（impellers）、進氣口、風扇馬達等結構，為了要滿足技術特徵與範圍，專利權人（無效答辯）提出圖式置換。
為了要擴大專利範圍，申請人提出原始附圖（因為沒有太多細節）置換核准時的圖式，但原始圖式因為品質不好，沒有結構細節，但反而擴大了能解釋的專利範圍。
（可參考：歐洲與美國核准前修正筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post_25.html））
不過，這個變更可能會使得相關領域技術人員以較廣的圖式來解釋專利範圍，卻又不同於「核准時圖式」描述的實施例特徵，範圍又更廣了。
非但如此，也導致專利範圍解釋的困難度，影響發明的可實施性。
我撈出系爭專利原始送件的圖檔（01.06.2005）：
後來被要求換上品質比較好的圖式（16.09.2005）：
從以上審查歷史的變動可知，申請人為了要克服「形式上」的缺失提出了品質較好的圖式，卻「感受到專利範圍被限縮」的壓力。
無效異議人主張，根據Art. 83 EPC揭露規定，說明書應明確而完整揭露到讓相關領域技術人員可以實現的程度，專利權人修正的圖式不僅可能讓專利範圍不明確或解讀過廣，還可能無法實施。
Article 83 Disclosure of the invention
The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art.
專利權人反駁，主張修正符合規定（Art. 123(3) EPC），認為專利範圍是否被擴大，根據Art. 69 EPC，應是申請專利範圍的文字而定。並主張相關領域技術人員要實施系爭案發明並沒有問題。
Article 69 Extent of protection
(1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims.
(2) For the period up to grant of the European patent, the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application shall be determined by the claims contained in the application as published. However, the European patent as granted or as amended in opposition, limitation or revocation proceedings shall determine retroactively the protection conferred by the application, in so far as such protection is not thereby extended.
歐洲訴願決定：
專利權人提出的修正為將原始送件圖式置換核准時圖式，這並無違法。
關於專利範圍的解釋（Art. 69 EPC）以及修正是否實質超出（Art. 123(3) EPC），訴願委員會表示以原始圖式置換核准時圖式並沒有得出專利範圍有擴大的問題，也就是圖式置換為品質不好的原始送件版並沒有實質影響專利範圍的解釋，也沒有擴大範圍的疑慮。
（編按，這至少是一個合理的判斷，但是為何要置換，感覺專利權人是希望能夠不要以圖式細節來限縮專利範圍的解釋，因此提出置換，而客觀地來看，這個變動並不影響專利範圍。）
"In the present case, the board cannot see that the scope of protection of the patent is extended if the substitute drawings are used instead of the drawings published with the patent specification to interpret the claims."
（編按，以下摘錄可為本案的重點）
圖式中不見的細節不會擴大專利範圍。
"... it does not conclude that the loss of information has extended the scope of protection of the patent."
並且，所漏失的技術資訊為次要特徵，不會影響專利範圍。
"The lost technical information relates to minor design details that do not affect the scope of the present claims."
因為專利範圍所描述的技術特徵已經足夠，且連結到原申請時圖式，使得相關領域技術人員可以明確地"想像"專利要保護的客體。
"Because the technical features of the claims are detailed and detailed enough in the description in conjunction with the original drawings, those skilled in the art can still clearly imagine what is protected and what it should look like."
將圖式置換到原始圖式仍符合Art. 123(3) EPC修正規定，因為相關領域專家可以理解其中技術特徵。
"The replacement of the drawings by the original drawings does not constitute a violation of Article 123 (3) EPC in the present case, because the expert can still understand with the changed drawings, like all technical features of the now determining the scope of protection claimed double fan assembly can be accomplished."
就訴願委員而言，修正後的圖式並沒有產生新而會擴大專利範圍解釋的問題。
"With regard to the interpretation of the claims, the amended drawings do not open up new, expanded possibilities of interpretation for the Chamber, nor do they raise new questions with regard to the clarity of the claims."
關於置換為原始送件的圖式，會不會有不明確的問題，這裡沒有答案，因為歐洲擴大訴願委員會並未作出應該要檢查圖式是否影響專利範圍明確性的決定。
總而言之，這個換回原始圖式的動作沒有讓相關領域技術人員有不能實施的疑慮，也不會影響專利範圍的解釋，就是符合修正規定。
EPO Case Law
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_ii_e_2_4_10.htm
2.4.10
Replacement of drawings
In T 236/12 the drawings published in the patent specification had been replaced by those originally filed. Although the published drawings had disclosed technical information not derivable from those originals, their replacement did not broaden the scope of the patent. The technical features of the claims were explained in sufficient detail in the description, as read together with the originals, so the skilled person could still get a clear idea of the protected subject-matter and how it should look.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言