本篇討論歐洲訴願決定 T 1370/15（25.1.2021），題稱「依職權審查當然的常識（ex officio common general knowledge）」（編按，"ex officio"意思有依據職權、當然的），其中討論依照職權審查進步性中「當然的常識」，是EPO嚴選案例。
案例資訊：
訴願號：T 1370/15
系爭歐洲專利申請號：09168309.4
訴願決定日：25 January 2021
專利名稱：Broadcast processing apparatus and control method thereof
專利權人：Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
異議人：Interessengemeinschaft für Rundfunkschutzrechte e.V.
相關法條：
EPC Art 100(a)（涉及Art 52專利適格性、Art 57產業利用性、技術不明確、超出原說明書內容等異議理由）
EPC Art 56（進步性）
EPC Art 54（新穎性）
EPC Art 114(1)（EPO依職權審查）
系爭專利關於一種廣播處理裝置，這是包括了影像處理器、音訊處理器與顯示器的裝置，並提供使用者設定的UI，Claim 1界定此裝置如下，Claim 9則描述裝置的控制方法，顯示設定UI，選擇影像的傳輸方法，在傳輸方法中執行自動通道設定。
Claim 1: A broadcast processing apparatus comprising:
an image processor which processes an image received through at least one transmission method and at least one processing method;
a display unit which displays thereon the image processed by the image processor;
a user interface (UI) provider which provides a setup UI to select a transmission method for transmitting data of the image to the broadcasting processing apparatus and a processing method for processing the data of the image in the broadcasting processing apparatus, through which an automatic channel setup is performed, among the at least one transmission method and the at least one processing method, respectively; and
a controller which displays the setup UI on the display unit if the automatic channel setup is initiated, and performs the automatic channel setup through the transmission method and the processing method selected through the setup UI.
Claim 9: A control method of a broadcast processing apparatus, the control method comprising:
displaying a setup user interface (UI) to select a transmission method for transmitting data of the image to the broadcasting processing apparatus and a processing method for processing the data of the image in the broadcasting processing apparatus, through which an automatic channel setup is performed, among at least one transmission method and at least one processing method, respectively, if the automatic channel setup is initiated; and
performing the automatic channel setup through the transmission method and the processing method selected through the setup UI.
本案緣起異議人（這是一間德國公司）向歐洲專利局會對系爭專利提起舉發，舉發理由主要是新穎性與進步性。歐洲專利局處理異議的部門（opposition division）判定舉發成立，其中根據異議人提出前案證據，認為系爭專利Claims 1, 9不具新穎性，因為所提到的UI並未有技術貢獻，因此部份專利範圍也不具進步性。
舉發證據D1：WO 2005/076610
舉發證據D4：Loewe Opta GmbH: User manual TV
專利權人Samsung提起訴願。
Samsung向訴願委員會提起修正動議，提出幾個修正請求（requests），在Claim 1中加入有關UI的描述（編按，這個修正顯示，Samsung放棄主張原Claim中的新穎性特徵，進而以characterised in that...表示其中具備的進步性特徵），其中描述UI提供傳輸與處理方法的選項：
"characterised in that
the UI provider is configured whereby for a first transmission method a processing method from the plurality of processing methods is selectable and for a second transmission method a processing method from the plurality of processing methods is selectable independently from the selection of the processing method of the first transmission method."
在另一請求中還加入了以下特徵：
"and the setup UI is provided, so that the processing method for the first transmission method and the processing method for the second transmission method are determined at the same time by a bout of user's selection on a same screen of the setup UI."
於再一請求中在原Claim 1中加入以下特徵：
"characterised in that the UI provider is configured whereby on a same screen of the setup UI, for a first transmission method a processing method from the plurality of processing methods is selectable and for a second transmission method a processing method from the plurality of processing methods is selectable independently from the selection of the processing method of the first transmission method, to perform a single channel set up process for the first and second transmission methods and the processing methods selected corresponding thereto, and
wherein the setup UI is provided, so that the plurality of processing methods are arranged to correspond to each of the plurality of transmission methods, thereby allowing at least one among the plurality of processing method to be selectable for each of the plurality of transmission methods."
根據以上修正（還有幾組更多修正限制未列），可知，Samsung強調裝置中的UI功能，強調UI提供使用者更有效率地選擇其中傳輸與處理方法，以及通道設定，其帶來技術貢獻。
歐洲訴願委員會受理案件。
歐洲訴願委員會判定：
1. 從多個請求中同意Claim 1加入UI提供設定選擇的特徵："the UI provider is configured whereby for a first transmission method a processing method from the plurality of processing methods is selectable and for a second transmission method a processing method from the plurality of processing methods is selectable independently from the selection of the processing method of the first transmission method."。
2. 委員會基於系爭專利圖2、4來解釋專利範圍中的UI。
3. 比對舉發證據後，證據D1並未揭示如新增的UI特徵，同意Claim 1, Claim 9具有新穎性。駁回原舉發成立的這部份理由。
4. 針對進步性，訴願委員會認為，原異議人提出的理由僅針對新穎性，並未明確針對進步性，如以D1結合相關領域一般知識的相關論述。這時產生一個議題，就是當異議人未提出的理由，是否專利局可以逕自審查，根據判例表示（如以下摘錄）：如果異議（舉發）理由僅有新穎性，未涉及進步性，相關單位可以不用審理進步性。這裡釐清出，若討論發明與前案證據的差異，這是新穎性議題，若拿來討論進步性，其實是矛盾的，因此本案中，並未涉及進步性議題。
"If a patent has been opposed on the grounds of lack of novelty and lack of inventive step and if only the ground of novelty has been substantiated within the opposition period, a specific substantiation of the ground of lack of inventive step is not necessary. Under such circumstances a specific substantiation of the ground of lack of inventive step is not even generally possible since - given that novelty, i.e. the presence of a difference between the claimed subject-matter and a prior art, is a prerequisite for determining whether an invention involves an inventive step in view of that prior art - this would contradict the reasons in support of lack of novelty. Therefore, the objection of lack of inventive step does not constitute a fresh ground for opposition and can therefore be examined in the appeal proceedings without the agreement of the patentee."
5. 這樣看來，訴願委員會不應針對進步性討論。然而！！！訴願委員會仍有權能獨立審理判斷證據是否證明系爭專利（發明）缺乏進步性。
"In the board's view, the question of whether the contents of point 3 of the notice of opposition referred to above constitutes a substantiation in full or in part or no substantiation at all is immaterial. This is because, as stated in the preceding quote, in the present case, the opponent arguing lack of novelty could not be required to substantiate the ground of inventive step because having done so might have contradicted the reasons advanced in support of lack of novelty. Therefore, the fact that the opponent chose to provide a brief substantiation of the ground of inventive step without being required to do so cannot cannot be found to weigh against it. It follows that the board is entitled to examine the ground of lack of inventive step independent of how thoroughly it was substantiated."
6. 訴願委員會針對進步性議題召開口頭審理程序（oral proceeding），即根據證據D1與參考習知UI的知識審理進步性。過程中，是否有權審理進步性仍是討論議題，特別的是，如果所陳列的證據是「一般常識（common general knowledge）」，就不需要額外的證據（文件類的），就與以上討論是否有權審理進步性的議題脫離了。
"5.3.4 The board notes that the question requested for referral relates to the current case only in so far as the term "facts and evidence" is restricted to "common general knowledge without evidence of such knowledge". In so far as the question goes beyond this, it is not relevant for deciding the case in question and to this extent is therefore inadmissible (see Case Law, V.B.2.3.3)."
7. 這部份結論，也是本篇討論重點（細節就忽略了），根據歐洲擴大訴願委員會判例，是否在此上訴程序中，訴願委員會可以引入新的當然的知識，而不用其他證據來審理專利進步性？答案是，可以！！！
"In the light of the foregoing, the answer to the narrower question requested for referral to the Enlarged Board:
"In inter partes appeal proceedings, is the Board allowed to introduce new ex officio common general knowledge without evidence of such knowledge which prejudices maintenance of the patent?"
is therefore: yes, to the extent that the board is knowledgeable in the respective technical field from the experience of its members working on cases in this field."
8. 系爭專利新增UI為常用知識。
"The person skilled in the art trying to solve the problem identified in point 6.6 above would have provided an adequate UI, such as a grid or drop-down menus, based on their common general knowledge."
這就是當然的知識：
"According to the board, before the priority date of the patent in suit, it belonged to the common general knowledge of the skilled person designing user interfaces for broadcast application that electronic program guide (EPG) tables (grids) allowed a user to select a program at the intersection of a column corresponding to a time slot and a row corresponding to a channel (see also point XIX(q) above)."
整理一下，訴願決定有幾項，包括所提出主要請求（main request）與次要請求（auxiliary request）具有新穎性，但不具備進步性，不具進步性的理由主要是引述了「當然的常識（ex officio common general knowledge）」，這些是從經驗中可知的知識。
訴願決定：https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t151370eu1.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/3hsycp27jnh1c3vssz4ttnuer31u58uy）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言