112(f)解釋專利範圍脈絡 - 筆記

112(f)解釋專利範圍的脈絡：

1) 解釋專利範圍採用最廣而合理的解釋原則（broadest reasonable interpretation），解釋專利範圍時，相關領域一般技術人員（ordinary skill in the art）根據請求項文字表面意義，參考說明書內容，作出最廣而合理的解釋。而針對訴諸112(f)解釋的專利範圍而言，最廣而合理地解釋專利範圍中的元件時，將受到說明書描述的限制。

2) 解釋訴諸112(f)解釋的專利範圍時，採用三個判斷，可參考：是否訴諸112(f)的三個判斷 - MPEP 2181, section I（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/07/112f-mpep-2181-i.html）：

(A) 當請求項中使用「means」或「step」或其他描述執行功能的用語（通用佔位符，generic placeholder），將訴諸112(f)解釋。

(B) 所述「means」或「step」或其他通用佔位符修改為功能用語，如configured to, so that這些描述，將訴諸112(f)解釋。

(C) 所述「means」或「step」或其他通用佔位符未以足夠的結構、材料或動作描述其功能，將訴諸112(f)解釋。

3) 使用所述「means」或「step」或其他通用佔位符時，將訴諸以112(f)解釋專利範圍，然而，若請求項中以足夠的結構、材料或動作描述所執行的功能時，就不用以112(f)解釋專利範圍。

4) 若請求項中未使用所述「means」或「step」或其他通用佔位符，專利範圍不會訴諸112(f)解釋，但是，當請求項中未以足夠的結構、材料或動作描述所執行的功能時，則仍會訴諸112(f)解釋。

5) 雖然專利請求項中未使用所述「means」或「step」用語，但其中採用了一些通用佔位符加上功能用語，且未記載足夠的結構、材料或結構，仍會訴諸112(f)解釋，也就是參考說明書中執行相關功能的結構特徵，將其中描述解釋專利範圍。

6) 根據上述第5)點，若申請人/發明人不想訴諸112(f)以說明書的描述限制專利範圍，可以採取的動作是：(1) 修改申請專利範圍，以迴避訴諸112(f)解釋，比如：加入執行其中功能足夠的結構特徵；或是(2) 表明請求項中已經有執行其功能足夠的結構特徵，以此迴避以112(f)解釋專利範圍。

Ron

專利適格性的答辯歷史筆記 - 評分一個帳戶

先列舉一個軟體專利案請求項範例，範例：US9699175，關於「一個帳戶的評價」，這個專利範圍是通過期末拋棄（terminal disclaimer）直接獲准，對應的另一家族專利US9455974（此案應該是策略性地放棄），'974審查歷史中"不意外地"曾面對35U.S.C.101的阻礙，答辯歷史可以看出一些這些大公司如何面對101、103等審查意見，案件經過幾次修正形成（如下），算很典型的軟體發明專利，有趣的是，這可以看出「Google怎麼評分一個帳戶」，這是從安全性考量來評分，相關因素有：使用者年紀、使用頻率、聯絡資訊、名聲、儲存數據量、帳戶存取其他帳戶的能力、帳戶存取或使用商業工具的能力。

US9455974：

第一次OA的101核駁：請求項發明關於使用者帳戶的資料預算、儲存與操作，屬於抽象概念，其中技術為一般目的電腦實現，沒有實質超越法定不予專利的標的。

第一次修正（claim 16）：

第二次OA的101核駁：前次修正併入的技術特徵，單獨或整體來看，並未建立有意義的技術限制使之超越法定不予專利理由。

第二次修正（Claim 16）：

這次的答辯意見（針對101），Google表示修正專利範圍Claim 16，併入的特徵描述藉由判斷安全性相關行為而保護儲存帳戶數據避免未授權存取的系統，並列舉出所述安全性相關行為的幾個項目。據此，再引用註明案例DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP (Fed. Cir. 2014)，主張如法院對此前案的判定中指出：如果並非單純描述通過網路驅使商業活動的效能，若提供的電腦技術可以克服電腦網路領域中的問題，為符合專利適格性的可專利的發明。

可以參考：商業方法可專利性專利適格性？電腦軟體專利的生機 - DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (Fed. 2014)案例討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/12/ddr-holdings-v-hotelscom-fed-2014.html）(在此更正較佳為“專利適格性”，指是否為可被專利保護的標的，clarified, updated on Aug. 3, 2023)

本案經提出RCE後，USPTO發出核准通知，看來以上修正與答辯有效地證明專利為改良電腦技術而具有專利適格性。而審委在核准通知並未明確回應以上101的答辯意見，而是判定專利克服先前技術的核駁理由而獲准。

Google在專利獲准後還提交一次簡單語句修正，最終領證。

以下列舉Claim 1（原Claim 16）專利範圍，描述一個系統，可通過判斷安全性相關行為保護帳戶數據免於未授權存取，系統包括「一或多個處理器」、「一些資料儲存裝置」以及「一或多個非暫態電腦可讀取儲存媒體」，其中儲存電腦程式指令，經處理器執行後，執行了以下步驟...其中描述了強化帳號的強度的相關措施。

1. A system for protecting stored account data from unauthorized access by determining a security-related action to implement in an account, comprising:

one or more processors,

a plurality of data storage facilities that maintain data elements corresponding to an account for a user, wherein the data elements are distributed across two or more data storage facilities and comprise two or more of the following data types: actual user data maintained at a first data storage facility, metadata descriptive of the actual user data maintained at a second data storage facility, user profile data maintained at a third data storage facility, and measured usage parameters maintained at a fourth data storage facility; and

one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media containing programming instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors cause the processors to:

automatically identify a plurality of signals in the data elements, wherein each of the plurality of signals comprises one or more characteristics of the account, selected from: an age of the account, a frequency of use of the account, contact information associated with the account, a reputation of the account, an amount of data stored or associated with the account, an ability of the account to access other accounts, an ability of the account to access or use financial instruments, or a type of data in the account,

for each of the signals, determine a signal value,

assign a plurality of weights to at least a subset of the signal values to yield a set of weighted signal values,

use the set of weighted signal values to assign an account value to the account,

use the account value to select a security-related action that corresponds to the account value, wherein the security-related action comprises one or more of the following:

enabling a stronger password or authentication sequence for the account,

enabling one or more security precautions relating to account recovery mechanisms,

enabling per-transaction authentication for the account,

adjusting thresholds for detecting fraudulent attempts to access the account,

triggering alerts for manual review of an account login, or

adjusting thresholds for requiring per-transaction authentication, and

cause an account system that comprises the plurality of data storage facilities to automatically implement the selected security-related action.

US9699175：

此案為上述'974的家族專利，面對重複專利的阻礙，之後經Terminal Disclaimer後獲准專利。

此案Claim 1描述保護帳戶數據的方法，典型的軟體專利，通過處理器執行程式指令後執行以下步驟：接收使用者帳戶關聯的數據，自動識別數據特徵，參考了帳戶的特徵：年紀、使用頻率、聯絡資訊、存取其他帳戶的另、名聲、數據量、存取或使用商業工具的能力與數據的形式等，如此來評價相關數據（評分），接著就是加強安全性的措施。

1. A method of protecting stored account data from unauthorized access by determining a security-related action to implement in an account, comprising:

by a processor, implementing programming instructions that are configured to cause the processor to:

receive, from at least two different data storage facilities, a plurality of data elements corresponding to an account for a user, wherein the data elements comprise two or more of the following data types: actual user data, metadata descriptive of the actual user data, user profile data, or measured usage parameters;

automatically identify a plurality of signals in the data elements, wherein the signals comprise one or more of the following characteristics of the account: an age of the account, a frequency of use of the account, contact information associated with the account, a reputation of the account, an amount of data stored or associated with the account, an ability of the account to access other accounts, an ability of the account to access or use financial instruments, or a type of data in the account;

for each of the signals, determine a signal value;

assign a plurality of weights to at least a subset of the signal values to yield a set of weighted signal values;

use the set of weighted signal values to assign an account value to the account;

use the account value to select a security-related action that corresponds to the account value, wherein the security-related action comprises one or more of the following:

enabling a stronger password or authentication sequence for the account,

enabling one or more security precautions relating to account recovery mechanisms,

enabling per-transaction authentication for the account,

adjusting thresholds for detecting fraudulent attempts to access the account,

triggering alerts for manual review of an account login, or

adjusting thresholds for requiring per-transaction authentication, and

instruct the plurality of data storage facilities from which the data elements were received to automatically implement the selected security-related action.

這裡補充一些與同事討論「請求項撰寫」的一些問題。

MPEP 608.01教我們如何撰寫專利範圍，其中608.01(m)則是提到請求項的格式（form of claims），主要是提醒申請人專利範圍應獨立於專利說明書其他的部份，如何開始、結束、分行、縮排，也說明這些格式規定是因為「專利撰寫實務」，不過都是目前撰寫專利請求項時依循的準則。

- 用I/We claim或The invention claimed is開始（不會排除其他類似的用語）。

- 專利元件/步驟分行、縮排，主要是易讀的目的。

- 請求項中可以用小括號標註元件編號（不會影響專利範圍的解讀）。

- 一句話原則，每個請求項就一個句號（period）。

- 依照請求項標的分組，不混淆產品、流程的專利範圍。

參考：https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e45061

608.01(m) Form of Claims

The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v.Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).

There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. In general, the printed patent copies will follow the format used but printing difficulties or expense may prevent the duplication of unduly complex claim formats.

Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.

Many of the difficulties encountered in the prosecution of patent applications after final rejection may be alleviated if each applicant includes, at the time of filing or no later than the first reply, claims varying from the broadest to which he or she believes he or she is entitled to the most detailed that he or she is willing to accept.

Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable. Where separate species are claimed, the claims of like species should be grouped together where possible. Similarly, product and process claims should be separately grouped. Such arrangements are for the purpose of facilitating classification and examination.

When two claims in an application comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) but are duplicates, or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other claim under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. Note however, that court decisions have confirmed applicant’s right to restate (i.e., by plural claiming) the invention in a reasonable number of ways. Indeed, a mere difference in scope between claims has been held to be enough. Form paragraphs 7.05.05 and 7.05.06 may be used where duplicate claims are present in an application.

See MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection II, for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of dependent claims that do not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. See MPEP § 804 for double patenting rejections of claims in different applications that are not patentable over each other.

The form of claim required in 37 CFR 1.75(e) is particularly adapted for the description of improvement-type inventions. It is to be considered a combination claim. The preamble of this form of claim is considered to positively and clearly include all the elements or steps recited therein as a part of the claimed combination.

The following form paragraphs may be used to object to the form of the claims.

一些會被駁回的寫法：

- 沒有用分開的頁面撰寫請求項。

- 不合格式規定情況：沒有用小括號標示編號；請求項撰寫過於擁擠、不具可讀性（有建議行距）。

- 專利請求項中有實質相同的範圍（僅用語wording差別）。

¶ 6.18.01 Claims: Placement

The claims in this application do not commence on a separate sheet or electronic page in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(3) and 1.75(h). Appropriate correction is required in response to this action.

¶ 7.29.01 Claims Objected to, Minor Informalities

Claim[1] objected to because of the following informalities: [2]. Appropriate correction is required.

Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

¶ 7.29.03 Claims Objected to, Spacing of Lines

The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).

¶ 7.05.05 Duplicate Claims, Warning

Applicant is advised that should claim [1] be found allowable, claim [2] will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

¶ 7.05.06 Duplicate Claims, Objection

Claim [1] objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim [2]. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

參考資料：

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12104/single-sentence-claim-and-use-of-semicolon-linker-and-in-claims

Ron

專利適格性涉及事實議題的討論 - WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., 19-2334 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

即便產出很多有關專利適格性的案例，專利適格性也有特別"明確"的判斷規則，但這類主題仍是很多樣性地"有趣"，除了個別案例的特殊性外，還可從很多案例整理出一些撰寫這類專利的原則，至少可以盡量避免可能面對的問題，更可以提醒發明人：(1)審查面對的風險與不確定性；(2)專利多樣性布局的重要性（避免雞蛋放在同一籃子）；(3)即便當下看似有風險，但不排除專利風向的改變。

本篇討論案例「WhitServe LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., 19-2334 (Fed. Cir. 2021)」中有關專利適格性要揭露的內容的程度，要多少細節、要多明確？這些是否也是判定有否符合35 U.S.C. § 101的因素？

案件資訊：

原告/上訴人/專利權人：WHITSERVE LLC

被告/被上訴人：DROPBOX, INC.

系爭專利：US8,812,437

判決日：April 26, 2021

系爭專利'437關於第三方備份方案的技術，第三方系統有中央電腦、客戶電腦，以及相互連接的網際網路，第三方系統儲存了各客戶端資料，看來確實是關於本案被告Dropbox等提供網路備份方案的技術。下圖顯示'437案架構，這種看似已經普及的架構一定要有特殊亮點，否則不容易取得專利，也不會讓被告Dropbox以專利適格性提起專利無效的主張，如果查看Claim 10內容，其中不同於傳統「網路硬碟」的技術是，客戶端電腦與系統資料是同步變動的，如果系統端電腦被客戶修改，客戶端電腦也會被修改，客戶端電腦的資料可以在沒有網路的情況下被修改，但會在有網路連線時，又回傳了系統。這不是Dropbox，那是甚麼？

其中爭議的Claim 10如下，所描述的系統包括的元件有實有虛，實的有中央電腦，可讓客戶端電腦經網路存取資料，以及儲存讓客戶端電腦存取資料的資料庫；虛的有中央電腦執行的資料處理軟體，提供客戶可以修改、更新、刪除資料、接收備份請求、傳回修改過的備份資料至客戶端電腦等功能，加上由客戶端電腦經網路發出的客戶端請求。

10. A system for onsite backup for internet-based data processing systems, comprising:

a central computer accessible by at least one client computer at a client site via the Internet for outsourced data processing;

at least one database containing a plurality of data records accessible by said central computer, the plurality of data records including internet-based data that is modifiable over the Internet from the client computer;

data processing software executing on said central computer for outsourcing data processing to the Internet from the at least one client computer, said data processing software modifying the internet-based data in the plurality of data records according to instructions received from the at least one client computer, the modifying including updating and deleting the internet-based data in the plurality of data records;

a client data request, sent from at least one client computer via the Internet to said central computer, the client data request comprising a request for a backup copy of at least one of the plurality of data records;

software executing on said central computer to receive, via the Internet from the at least one client computer, the request for a backup copy of at least one of the plurality of data records including the internet-based data in the at least one of the plurality of data records that has been modified by said data processing software; and

software executing on said central computer to transmit the backup copy of the at least one of the plurality of data record including the internet-based data in the at least one of the plurality of data records that has been modified by said data processing software to the client site for storage of the internet-based data from the at least one of the plurality of data record in a location accessible via the at least one client computer;

wherein the location is accessible by the at least one client computer without using the Internet.

專利權人WhitServe向地方法院對Dropbox提起侵權訴訟，地院同意Dropbox提出的專利不具適格性的請願，理由是系爭專利涉及抽象概念（abstract idea），並且未提出可轉換抽象概念為可專利應用（patent-eligible application）的進步特徵（inventive concept）。

具體而言，地院認為系爭專利並非關於「改良電腦功能」的技術，如Claim 10，其中僅描述一般目的電腦（generic computer）執行常規的電腦功能（routine computer functions），並沒有超越已知人類管理備份資料的相關資料處理技術的進步特徵（nothing inventive）。系爭專利被地方法院法官解釋後，變得很普通：在本地的資料（onsite）備份到異地（offsite），或是反過來。

WhitServe上訴CAFC。

除了一定要審理的專利適格性外，法院特別也提起與Dropbox有關的案例「Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021)」，其中意見有，35 U.S.C. § 101為法律問題（question of law），審查時，可能包含事實議題（issues of fact）。

這裡提到案例「Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l (2014)」（可參考：抽象概念若僅以一般目的電腦實現，不可專利 - Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International (2014)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/06/alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank.html）），最高法院建立兩步驟檢測（TWO-STEP test），用以判斷專利是否涉及不可專利標的，這個判斷也會考量專利內容是否可證明發明超越抽象概念！（step one）例如，可從說明書內容判斷發明是否有技術的改良，或僅是不可專利個概念。接著，進到step two，判斷專利範圍中是否有進步特徵（inventive concept），也就是判斷專利範圍中的個別元件或是組合可以轉換抽象概念為可專利應用，這部份也將考量專利範圍中的技術特徵。

本案的two-step test：

step one:

本案的101議題是系爭專利範圍是否有可專利的改良技術？這時參考了系爭專利說明書，法院認定系爭專利關於電腦技術，但僅使用了一般儲存裝置與網路傳輸技術，也僅應用了一般備份功能，僅屬於資料的操作，為抽象概念。

step two:

法院判定系爭專利揭露「公司行號漸漸地將資料處理系統放在網路上，並提供網頁介面查看自己的資料」，其中即便有編輯與修改的功能，也是已知（well known），並僅採用一般目的電腦與相關元件（conventional, generic arrangement），並不能因此證明有進步特徵（inventive concept）。

原告/專利權人WhitServe主張地方法院並未分析在發明的時間相關技術的觀點，沒有考量非顯而易見的客觀證據（objective indicia of nonobviousness），沒有進行解釋專利範圍，沒有給予系爭專利有效的推定（presumption of validity）。然而，這些事實主張在法院看來，都沒有影響到不具專利適格性的判斷。

CAFC同意地院判定沒有任何事實議題可以拒絕法院對於專利適格性的決定。

參考案例「Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)」（可參考：整體性地考量專利適格性，這是法律議題 - Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/04/berkheimer-v-hp-inc-fed-cir-2018.html））意旨，法院判定系爭專利'437不具專利適格性，理由是，參考系爭專利說明書等內部證據（事實證據），可以判定其中系統使用了備份記錄的基本商業概念，實現取得與儲存備份檔案的抽象概念的一般環境，專利範圍中的元件為已知、常規與習知（well-understood, routine and conventional）。

法院同時也重申，專利權人提出的非顯而易見主張屬於103範疇，非本案討論的101議題，也不用額外進行專利範圍解釋。

本案判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2334.OPINION.4-26-2021_1768700.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/sw1uggyhkl5gnk70mm53s6zv4f6r3s2s）

Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021)案判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2196.OPINION.2-12-2021_1732513.pdf

Ron

販售要約滿足專利申請前已販售證據(on-sale bar) - Caterpillar v. ITC & Wirtgen (Fed. Cir. 2020)

本篇回到歷史「新穎性（102）」討論其中「販售中」的意義，

Caterpillar v. ITC & Wirtgen (Fed. Cir. 2020)案件資訊：

上訴人/專利權人：CATERPILLAR INC., CATERPILLAR PAVING PRODUCTS, INC.

被上訴人：INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

參加人：WIRTGEN GMBH, JOSEPH VOGELE AG, WIRTGEN GROUP HOLDING GMBH, WIRTGEN AMERICA, INC.

系爭專利：US7,140,693

判決日：December 18, 2020

系爭專利'693關於一種具有重進後輪的銑床（Milling machine with re-entering back wheels, 5），這是一種處理道路表面的銑床，銑床具有多個輪具與軌道（wheels or tracks），其中通過驅動結構旋轉其中結構與軌道，並可以樞軸支撐臂移動輪具或軌道，並能伸出或縮回。以下列舉的專利範圍claim 17描述控制輪具或軌道位置的方法，軌道支撐著整個機具的支架，方法步驟包括：制動「第一制動器」樞接支撐臂，可定位輪具或軌道，伸出和縮回位置形成90度弧角；制動「第二制動器」在旋轉方向定位輪具或軌道。爭議的Claim 28描述在所述約垂直軸的旋轉方向定位輪具或軌道，以協調操作其他輪具或軌道。

17. A method of controlling the position of at least one wheel or track of a plurality of wheels or tracks supporting a frame of a work machine, said at least one wheel or track being connected to a respective lifting column connected to said frame by a support arm, said lifting column being adapted to raise and lower said frame relative to the respective wheel or track, said method comprising the steps of:

controllably actuating a first actuator to pivot said support arm relative to said frame to position said wheel or track between a projecting or retracted position relative to said frame, the projecting and retracted position forming an arc of at least 90°, and

controllably actuating a second actuator to position said wheel or track in a selected rotational direction about a vertical axis of said wheel or track.

28. The method of claim 17, wherein positioning said wheel or track in said rotational direction about the vertical axis is coordinated with the steering of at least one of the other of the plurality of wheels or tracks.

本案爭議涉及系爭專利是否在申請前已販售。本案系爭專利專利權人Caterpillar向美國國際貿易委員會（ITC）提起原被告（訴訟參加人）WIRTGEN等提起進口貨品侵權的告訴，案件經ITC判定系爭專利'693幾項專利範圍發明因為申請前已販售（編按，系爭專利最早申請案在2002年，於2006年獲准專利，適用pre-AIA專利法，依照pre-AIA 102(b)規定應於申請前一年已販售）而無效，專利權人上訴CAFC。

[pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)] 

不具新穎性的情況：發明在美國提出專利申請前超過一年(1)在本國(美國)或外國獲得專利或是公開，或是(2)公開使用，或是(3)在本國販售。也就是，美國專利申請日前有一年的新穎性優惠期限。

35 U.S.C. 102 (PRE-AIA) CONDITIONS FOR PATENTABILITY; NOVELTY AND LOSS OF RIGHT TO PATENT.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless — 

...

(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or

...

本案專利權人在ITC向進口機具商提出侵權告訴（section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930），案件經ITC啟動調查，被告主張系爭專利對應的產品-SF 102 C Bitelli已在關鍵日（April 26, 2001，系爭專利申請前一年）之前販售，專利不具新穎性（pre-AIA 102(b)）。

系爭專利機具的圖式：

對應產品SF 102 C Bitelli，圖案截自https://www.pavingequipment.com/：

經調查相關文件，有收據、有報表顯示1999年已經販售系爭產品SF 102 C Bitelli，對於此證據，專利權人並未爭辯，但爭辯的是，這些銷售記錄並非在美國本土。

在ITC委員會行政法官（ALJ）認為，即便銷售記錄（收據）顯示系爭產品運往義大利，但這張收據符合在美國本土的商業活動要件（on sale bar），且有證據顯示機器的序號也在美國出現，因此ITC認定系爭產品已經在專利申請前超過一年在美國販售。

專利權人Caterpillar上訴CAFC。主要爭議是，系爭專利對應的系爭產品是否已在美國販售。

引用案例Hamilton Beach Brands，認為，在國外商業要約販售涉及美國的商業活動，不符102新穎性規定。又在另一案例In re Caveney中，從英國的要約市集在美國商業活動的買家，即便是傳送給美國買家的"樣本"，也就是發明運往美國本土，不符102新穎性規定。

可參考本部落格報導：

- 申請前商業販售或約定形成的專利權障礙 - Hamilton Beach v. Sunbeam Products (Fed. Cir. 2013)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/hamilton-beach-v-sunbeam-products-fed.html）

- 販售合約構成先前技術(On-Sale Bar)的討論 - Helsinn v. Teva (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-sale-bar-helsinn-v-teva-fed-cir-2017.html）

根據以上案例意旨，本案的實質證據支持ITC調查，判定（判決文列舉事證顯示真的有很嚴格的調查，特別是對證據中的字字珠璣）：

(1)1999年收據指出收據地址為美國買家地址；

(2)1999年收據證據顯示以美元回支付貨幣，並指出出口至美國；

(3)1999年收據證據顯示「增值稅評估（VAT assessment）」表示供應商已經扣除增值稅，這表示出口到非歐盟國家。

(4)證據顯示系爭商品在2000年已經販售到美國相同買家，也就表明了1999年的販售要約是要在美國使用。

CAFC判定系爭專利發明滿足on-sale bar，相關請求項無效。

判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/19-2306.OPINION.12-18-2020_1704269.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/oafxbbczg7icq6lbtoe2wjnee1yksopy）

資料參考：

https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/12/meaning-sale-country.html

Ron

 

被告產品沒有的功能，就不能均等讀入 - Olaf Soot Design, LLC v. Daktronics, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021)

案件資訊：

原告/交叉上訴人：OLAF SOOT DESIGN, LLC

被告/上訴人：DAKTRONICS, INC

系爭專利：US6,520,485

判決日：January 7, 2021

本案緣起Olaf Sööt Design, LLC (“OSD”)對Daktronics提出侵權告訴，主張被告侵害系爭專利'485的Claim 27專利權，地方法院陪審團判定被告侵權產品（Vortek）適用均等論（doctrine of equivalents）侵權成立，但蓄意侵權不成立，被告提出請願，主張被告侵權產品對系爭專利中一個元件"h"不符合文義讀取，也不適用均等論，但地院駁回請願。

雙方都上訴，被告上訴CAFC主張侵權不成立，原告主張被告蓄意侵權，以及主張本案符合例外條件而應繳付原告律師費。

系爭專利'485關於升降物品的懸吊系統（fly system），其中結構特徵整理起來，如Claim 27所描述的，有支架40、基底構件30、在基底夠架上轉動設置的長形鼓輪11，以及相關手段、在基底構件30上滑動裝設支架40的手段，以及，當有物體移入相應上下位置時，且有纜線從鼓輪上解開或纏繞時，其中中空輪與中空鼓輪經尺寸調整可讓螺桿移入中空輪，以讓中空鼓輪接收螺桿（"h) said hollow hub and hollow drum being sized such that the screw can move into the hollow hub to allow the hollow drum to receive the screw as the cable unwinds from or winds up on the drum as the object moves to its respective down or up position."）。

27. A motorized fly system winch, drum and carriage combination for raising and lowering an object, comprising:

a) a carriage,

b) a base member having first and second end portions,

c) an elongated hollow drum having cable grooves and having a longitudinal axis and rotatably mounted on the base member and a cable for simultaneously winding and unwinding the cable on or off the drum grooves when the drum is rotated, said cable passing from the outside of the drum directly or via a sheave to the object such that rotation of the drum causes the object to move up and down,

d) first means for slideably mounting the base member to the carriage,

e) said drum having at a first end a hollow hub rotatably journalled at the first end portion of the base member,

f) second means for rotating the drum relative to the base member such that the base member with its drum and the carriage can move with respect to each other in synchronism with the rotation of the drum to control the cable run to the object,

g) said second means comprising an elongated screw having a first end non-rotatably mounted to the carriage and a second end connected to the drum and axially aligned with the hollow hub and the hollow drum, said screw extending mainly outside of the hollow drum when the cable is wound up on or unwound from the drum and the object is in its respective up or down position,

h) said hollow hub and hollow drum being sized such that the screw can move into the hollow hub to allow the hollow drum to receive the screw as the cable unwinds from or winds up on the drum as the object moves to its respective down or up position.

下圖描述被告侵權產品的中空輪與、螺桿之間的結構關係。

主要爭議在解釋Claim 27的'h'元件。

法官引用案例「O2 Micro International Ltd. v. Beyond Innovation Technology Co.」，其中當有訴訟一方提起有關解釋專利範圍的爭議時，法院有責任解決，在本案地院審判中，法院並未在陪審團判決前解釋專利範圍，即不符O2 Micro意旨。更者，法院還在陪審團判決前還未解釋專利範圍（解釋專利範圍的責任在法院）就駁回被告提起不侵權請願（JMOL of noninfringement），也就是法院在這個程序上有違背前例，也不當地提交未處理爭議的專利範圍解釋給陪審團的問題。

案件到CAFC，法官表示解釋範圍的最佳時機應該是在地方法院，但此時，因為雙方都提出爭議，CAFC自行解釋專利範圍，依循的是案例「Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)」所指示應由相關領域一般技術人員依照請求項文字、說明書內容，以一般與常規的意思解釋專利範圍用語，也不必要將說明書的限制讀入專利範圍中。本案中，在系爭專利Claim 27元件'h'中出現的"hollow hub"與"hollow drum"為不同的元件。

h) said hollow hub and hollow drum being sized such that the screw can move into the hollow hub to allow the hollow drum to receive the screw as the cable unwinds from or winds up on the drum as the object moves to its respective down or up position.

參考報導：合理解釋專利範圍的案例 - Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/05/phillips-v-awh-corp-fed-cir-2005.html）

於是，法院就根據以上原則解釋元件'h'的專利範圍，其中，根據請求項字面意思，以及說明書內容，顯然"hollow hub"與"hollow drum"為分開的兩個元件。

根據這個解釋，被告產品Vortek字義上沒有侵權，因為Vortek產品中的「hollow drum」（可參考以上截圖）並不能將螺桿收進。

關於「均等論」，被告侵權產品Vortek的drum（鼓輪）不能收進螺桿，也沒有其他等效的功能，如此，因為不能不當地刪去系爭專利範圍中有關中空鼓輪可以在有纜線纏繞或解開時收進螺桿的限制，使得不能以均等論將此功能讀到被告侵權產品不能達成的功能上。

如此可知，就法院解釋均等論來看，至少功能上也要比到，也不能不當地從專利範圍刪掉特定元件，而不是字面上都有，雖有些差異，好像可以讀入就讀入。

這裡提到一個「全要件原則」，如果將均等論應用在被告侵權產品（或流程）不符合整個專利範圍的限制，就不適用均等論！

可參考過去筆記：侵權比對分析筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/09/blog-post_12.html），其中我國侵害鑑定流程顯示，想要適用均等論，前提示，要先符合「全要件原則」。

根據以上論述，CAFC親自"重新"審理侵權案，侵權不成立。

my two cents:

本篇學到一件事，若要適用均等論，需要先符合全要件原則，如果被告產品就沒有專利範圍中描述的其中之一元件或功能，均等論就不適用！

判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/20-1009.OPINION.1-7-2021_1713728.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/sw1uggyhkl5gnk70mm53s6zv4f6r3s2s）

Ron

Tile v. Airtag 的專利筆記

本文發想自新聞：
- https://techcrunch.com/2021/04/20/tile-bashes-apples-new-airtag-as-unfair-competition/
- https://www.macrumors.com/2021/04/20/tile-complains-about-airtag-launch/
- https://www.macrumors.com/guide/airtags/

當強大的對手推出與自己相似的產品時，除了義憤填膺外，就來審視自己的「武器」有哪些，如果是經營了一陣子的產品，將可能具有佔有率優勢，如果還有專利權，也表示擁有先發制人的地位，但是所謂「強大的對手」是擁有智慧型手機平台的Apple時，那壓力就變得沈重。

從新聞得知，Tile公司（Tile Inc.）的找物收發器（Tiles）有90%市占率，就是一個設計精良的藍牙收發器，可以附掛在任何怕遺失的物品上，開啟APP或相關程式後，可以循著這些收發器建立的網路定位到物品。而Apple發布最新（今天凌晨）的產品中，有個Airtag，就是類似的東西。

當Apple發表新產品，即便是事前已經可以預料這些產品，還是讓Tile Inc.作出立即反應，包括準備去國會備案，要求國會關注Apple將來的發展可能衍生出不公平競爭的問題。這個問題可能衍生壟斷市場的不公平競爭議題，理由是平台業者若參與競爭，確實會威脅倚賴這個平台生存的企業。（編按，這樣就想到有些賣場、便利商店中可以看到貼他們自己品牌的商品，與其他上架商品競爭的情況）

（圖案截自：https://www.apple.com/airtag/）

（圖案截自：https://www.thetileapp.com/）

這個小小的東西其實應該不是多新的技術，只是商品化，加上商品本身有裝飾性，又很有用，週邊效應所帶出的新穎功效，只要用心布局，仍有機會獲得專利。

Tile Inc.美國專利：我用"Tile Inc."當作專利權人搜尋美國專利，查到173件領證專利。

US10,945,093 Systems and methods for locating a tracking device

1. A method comprising: 
associating, by a tracking system using at least one processor, a user with a tracking device owned by the user;
in response to the tracking device coming within a threshold proximity of a first mobile device of the user, receiving, by the tracking system, a location of the first mobile device, an identity of the tracking device, and an identity of the first mobile device and storing the received location as a last known location of the tracking device; and
in response to the tracking device coming within a threshold proximity of a second mobile device of a second user, receiving, by the tracking system, a location of the second mobile device and the identity of the tracking device and storing the received location as a last known location of the tracking device without storing an identity of the second mobile device, wherein the second mobile device is configured to provide the location of the second mobile device to the tracking system without notifying the second user that the tracking device was detected by the second mobile device and without providing the identity of the second mobile device.

US10,911,904 Tracking device presence detection and reporting by access points

1. A method for locating a tracking device, comprising:
detecting, by an access point, a tracking device within a proximity of the access point;
while the tracking device and the access point are communicatively coupled, providing, by the access point, a location of the access point and an identifier of the tracking device to a tracking server at a first frequency; and
while the tracking device and the access point are not communicatively coupled, providing, by the access point, a location of the access point and an identifier of the tracking device to the tracking server at a second frequency greater than the first frequency.

D881,729 Tracking device

D881,048 Tracking device

D880,320 Tracking device

US10,536,801 Tracking device operation in safety-classified zone

（編按，簡單查Tile Inc.專利，用名稱來看，可以看出非常多的功能布局，從圖式快速瀏覽，可以看出許多專利都是基於相同的概念產出的，加上不少的設計專利，感覺是已經「超前部署」，就看怎麼面對Apple挾強大的平台優勢（幾乎是內建功能）侵蝕Tile Inc.的市占率，以及將來可能的侵權爭議。）

Apple Inc.美國專利：（其實找東西的專利還不少，還蠻有趣的，但Apple的專利太多樣性了，簡單的檢索不容易找到關鍵專利，列兩篇來看看人家怎麼寫的）

US10,410,485 Devices and methods for locating accessories of an electronic device

1. A method comprising: 
playing a media item on an electronic device;
detecting, via the electronic device, disconnection of an accessory from the electronic device, wherein the disconnection of the accessory is detected to have occurred while the media item is playing on the electronic device;
detecting, via the electronic device, a title of the media item;
storing the title on the electronic device;
receiving a request at the electronic device for assistance in locating the accessory; and 
presenting the title on the electronic device in response to the request for assistance in locating the accessory as a reminder of the media item that had been playing when the disconnection of the accessory occurred.

US10,356,553 Precise indoor localization and tracking of electronic devices

1. A method, comprising:
performing, via a first wireless electronic device, indoor localization and tracking of a plurality of other wireless electronic devices within an indoor environment, comprising: performing front-back detection;
performing stationary node detection;
performing angle of arrival (AoA) error correction; and
performing field of view (FOV) filtering;
wherein performing indoor localization and tracking of the plurality of other wireless electronic devices comprises providing an indication of a physical location of the plurality of other wireless electronic devices within the indoor environment, wherein performing front-back detection comprises calculating a range matrix comprising range data of each of the plurality of other wireless electronic devices with respect to the first wireless electronic device, calculating an angle of arrival (AoA) matrix comprising AoA data of each of the plurality of other wireless electronic devices with respect to the first wireless electronic device, or both

US7552031 Personal items network, and associated methods

1. A personal items network, comprising a plurality of items, each item having:

a wireless communications port for communicating with at least one other item in the personal items network;

a processor for:

determining if the item in the personal items network is no longer communicating with the at least one other item, and

storing at least one of time and location information for the item in memory in response to determining that the item is no longer communicating with the at least one other item; and

an indicator embedded within the item for providing an output informing a user that the item is no longer communicating with the at least one other item based on the time and location information stored in memory, wherein a user may locate the at least one other item from the output provided by the indicator on the item.

Ron

取得描述用語的商標需要證明其識別性 - In re JC Hospitality LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020)

In re JC Hospitality LLC (Fed. Cir. 2020)案件資訊：
上訴人： IN RE: JC HOSPITALITY LLC

系爭商標：THE JOINT

判決日：February 28, 2020

申請人"JC Hospitality LLC"網站顯示是辦宴席的公司，而系爭商標JOINT的意思之一是「合辦」，就此而言，對申請人而言是「描述所提供的服務的描述性用語」。

（圖案截自https://jc-hospitality.com/）

本案起源於TTAB訴願案：86/525,425, 86/525,431，TTAB同意USPTO駁回Hospitality的2件商標申請案的決定，兩件商標申請案為屬於不同類別的「THE JOINT」，理由是這個標誌為通用（generic）在服務申請的用途，或僅是描述（descriptive）Hospitality的服務而已，沒有識別服務來源的功用。

「THE JOINT」申請案涵蓋class 41：娛樂服務，如現場音樂表演、音樂會、夜店服務等，另一為class 43：餐廳、酒吧與宴席服務。

15 U.S.C. § 1052

(e)Consists of a mark which (1) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is merely descriptive or deceptively misdescriptive of them, (2) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically descriptive of them, except as indications of regional origin may be registrable under section 1054 of this title, (3) when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them, (4) is primarily merely a surname, or (5) comprises any matter that, as a whole, is functional.

(f)Except as expressly excluded in subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)(3), and (e)(5) of this section, nothing in this chapter shall prevent the registration of a mark used by the applicant which has become distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce. The Director may accept as prima facie evidence that the mark has become distinctive, as used on or in connection with the applicant’s goods in commerce, proof of substantially exclusive and continuous use thereof as a mark by the applicant in commerce for the five years before the date on which the claim of distinctiveness is made. Nothing in this section shall prevent the registration of a mark which, when used on or in connection with the goods of the applicant, is primarily geographically deceptively misdescriptive of them, and which became distinctive of the applicant’s goods in commerce before December 8, 1993. A mark which would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 1125(c) of this title, may be refused registration only pursuant to a proceeding brought under section 1063 of this title. A registration for a mark which would be likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under section 1125(c) of this title, may be canceled pursuant to a proceeding brought under either section 1064 of this title or section 1092 of this title.

Hospitality引用15 U.S.C. § 1052(f)，主張如果申請人可以證明系爭商標有識別性（distinctiveness），即便商標文字為描述性（descriptive），仍可以註冊為商標。

TTAB駁回商標申請案的理由是（兩者之一符合即駁回）：

(1)對申請人提供的服務而言是通用語（generic for the service）

(2)商標申請案僅敘述性用語（merely descriptive）

如果想要註冊的商標文字僅是「描述申請人提供的服務的用語」，除非其具有第二含意（secondary meaning，15 U.S.C. § 1052(f)），也就是可以證明商標申請案具有「識別性」，即便為通用語或敘述性用語，仍可以取得商標權。

這時，TTAB考量6個因素，原則是，愈是敘述性強的用語，證明其具有識別性的要求會愈高！

考量一：消費者可以連結商標申請案之標誌（圖案、文字）到特定來源（服務、商品提供者）。

考量二：使用標誌的長度、程度與專用性。

考量三：行銷的量與方式。

考量四：使用此標誌的商品銷售量與消費者數目。

考量五：他人蓄意仿冒。

考量六：未經請求的媒體報導帶有此標誌的商品。

（編按，如果想要讓一個通用字變成自己的商標，就使用大量廣告，讓消費者心中產生識別性、販賣商品成功到人家想要仿冒、媒體主動報導。當然，這是有風險的，除了要用時間去cook外，一旦無法取得商標與專用權...就GG了。）

對此決定，Hospitality提出上訴。

就法院而言，考量原則不變，就看上訴人所擔負的舉證能力，提出的證據需要足夠的證據力。

法院查閱Oxford字典，「JOINT」可指一群人聚在一起吃喝或玩，因此，明顯地，證明系爭商標申請案為申請人所提供服務的通用語，為描述這項服務的用語。查驗系爭商標申請案的字面意思時，牽扯出歷史意義...。（不在此贅述）

然而，申請人主張，即便是相關服務領域的描述性用語，這個字「JOINT」為雙關語（double entendre），也就是說，依照TMEP規定，只要其中之一的意思可以跳脫描述相關商品或服務時，仍可註冊商標。

針對此雙關語的主張，「JOINT」的另一意思是在監獄中的俚語，但此證據不足以讓他可以成為申請人的商標，理由是對申請人而言，註冊此商標的目的不是利用其雙關語。顯然法官認為這是申請人想辦法找的答案，卻非申請商標的本意，因此無法採用因為具有雙關語的理由而可獲准商標權。

法院同意以上TTAB的意見，不同意系爭商標的雙關語主張。

就系爭商標的「識別性」而言，申請人Hospitality提出的證據包括使用系爭商標申請案的收益、行銷與廣告、大眾媒體與消費者識別，證明申請人已經自1995年起連續使用「THE JOINT」，讓消費者已經建立系爭商標與申請人的關聯性。

不過，如TTAB的意見，申請人Hospitality公司的服務僅限於拉斯維加斯，無法得知在相關餐廳與夜店中「THE JOINT」具有識別性，也就是證據力不足以證明系爭商標具有識別性，並未建立所述第二含意。

CAFC同意TTAB拒絕商標註冊的決定。

判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/18-2048.Opinion.2-28-2020_1542151.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/tb610k4afzb7dhy9xpolapnrmlfgaf76）

參考資料：

https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/02/trademark-for-joint.html

Ron