所謂「條件式專利範圍（conditional claims）」，就是在專利範圍描述有條件的技術特徵，常見Ving ... if...; Ving ... only if ...; when ..., Ving ...這種的，常見是電腦程式實現的方法流程，電腦程式常常要處理的程序是有條件的，當某條件滿足時，就執行某某動作。
案例一：
- 專利範圍中前言、步驟順序與條件產生的問題 - Michael S. Sutton Ltd. v. Nokia Corp. (Dist. Court, ED Texas 2009)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/02/michael-s-sutton-ltd-v-nokia-corp-dist.html）
不可避免的，電腦實現專利會遇到這樣的專利範圍撰寫形式，以過去報導案例"Michael S. Sutton Ltd. v. Nokia Corp. (Dist. Court, ED Texas 2009)"中系爭專利US5,771,238為例，其中Claim 1如下，在步驟(1)中分析信息為控制信息或是數據信息，(2)若為數據信息，即分析是否根據特定壓縮技術進行壓縮... (3)其中又有進一步"if"條件式。
Claim 1：
1. A method of preparing a message packet for digital data transmission which enables eight bit data, binary data and control messages to be encapsulated in a 7 bit character packet where one or more of the 7 bit characters are prohibited comprising the steps of:
1. A method of preparing a message packet for digital data transmission which enables eight bit data, binary data and control messages to be encapsulated in a 7 bit character packet where one or more of the 7 bit characters are prohibited comprising the steps of:
(1) analysing a message to be transmitted to ascertain if it is a control message or a data message,
(2) if a data message,
(a) analysing it to determine if it can be compressed according to a known compression technique and if so compressing the data by that technique,
(b) if compression was not possible, and if the data consists of characters which are uniquely determined by 7 bits, treating the data as a 7 bit character string and stuffing the 7 bit character string into an 8 bit string,
(c) assigning a sub-channel number to data which is processed according to steps 2(a) or (b) or which has not been so processed,
(3) assembling the message packet which incorporates
(a) framing information which includes bits which indicate whether the packet is control data or message data,
(b) information indicative of assigned sub-channel where the message is a data message, and
(c) the control data or
(d) the compressed, stuffed or unoptimised message data,
(4) unpacking the packet from 8 bit bytes to form a 7 bit byte packet,
(5) analysing the 7 bit byte packet to ascertain if it contains any prohibited characters and if so substituting such prohibited characters with a suitable escape character and a complementary check character to produce the message packet for transmission.
針對此案例中系爭專利的方法請求項，因為其中步驟有明確的前後關係，因此步驟順序成為專利範圍的限制，又因為其中有步驟是根據某條件滿足才執行，其中被認為有邏輯不通的問題，因此在條件式專利範圍的撰寫形式下，產生「無法實施」的問題。
並且，以「條件式」撰寫的專利範圍，在侵權判斷上，當被告侵權對象執行所有條件才算"字意"侵權；反之，在專利性判斷上，最廣範圍就在其中之一條件滿足時，因此先前技術只要執行其中之一條件與動作，就算讀到專利範圍。
因此，條件式專利範圍，非必要就不要使用，除非整個程序非得這樣表示。
案例二：
- 當有條件符合而流程結束，就以此為最廣專利範圍 - Ex parte Schulhauser (PTAB 2013-007847)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/10/ex-parte-schulhauser-ptab-2013-007847.html）
"Ex parte Schulhauser (PTAB 2013-007847)"案例中系爭專利US12/184,020（申請號）就採用了條件式專利範圍。當面對最廣解釋專利範圍時，此案系爭專利方法就被判定不具非顯而易知性。
1. A method for monitoring of cardiac conditions incorporating an implantable medical device in a subject, the method comprising the steps of:
collecting physiological data associated with the subject from the implantable device at preset time intervals, wherein the collected data includes real-time electrocardiac signal data, heart sound data, activity level data and tissue perfusion data;
comparing the electrocardiac signal data with a threshold electrocardiac criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event;
triggering an alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria;
determining the current activity level of the subject from the activity level data if the electrocardiac signal data is within the threshold electrocardiac criteria;
determining whether the current activity level is below a threshold activity level;
comparing the tissue perfusion data with a threshold tissue perfusion criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event if the current activity level is determined to be below a threshold activity level;
triggering an alarm state if the threshold tissue perfusion data is not within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria; and
triggering an alarm state if the threshold tissue perfusion data is within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria and the heart sound data indicates that S3 and S4 heart sounds are detected,
wherein if an alarm state is not triggered, the physiological data associated with the subject is collected at the expiration of the preset time interval.
collecting physiological data associated with the subject from the implantable device at preset time intervals, wherein the collected data includes real-time electrocardiac signal data, heart sound data, activity level data and tissue perfusion data;
comparing the electrocardiac signal data with a threshold electrocardiac criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event;
triggering an alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria;
determining the current activity level of the subject from the activity level data if the electrocardiac signal data is within the threshold electrocardiac criteria;
determining whether the current activity level is below a threshold activity level;
comparing the tissue perfusion data with a threshold tissue perfusion criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event if the current activity level is determined to be below a threshold activity level;
triggering an alarm state if the threshold tissue perfusion data is not within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria; and
triggering an alarm state if the threshold tissue perfusion data is within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria and the heart sound data indicates that S3 and S4 heart sounds are detected,
wherein if an alarm state is not triggered, the physiological data associated with the subject is collected at the expiration of the preset time interval.
在Ex parte Schulhauser案中，即便專利申請人主張專利範圍中描述的所有條件式步驟都具有專利性的比重，但是PTAB並不同意，因為其中次要的步驟並不見得會發生或被執行，因此在專利性的判斷下，只要有先前技術揭露了其中至少一個條件步驟，將不被獲准專利。反過來想，這樣的發明要獲准專利，就需要每個條件式步驟本身要有新穎性與進步性（非顯而易知性）。
案例三：
Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. (Fed. Cir. 2010)
原告/被上訴人：LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
被告/上訴人：TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, WESTERN RESERVE LIFE ASSURANCE CO. OF OHIO, AND TRANSAMERICA FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
系爭專利：US7,089,201
判決日：June 23, 2010
判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/09-1403.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/sir5ltxsropvnmqr0qyu9586oeapidpc）
系爭專利範圍Claim 35：
35. A computerized method for administering a variable annuity plan having a guaranteed mini-mum payment feature associated with a system-atic withdrawal program, and for periodically determining an amount of a scheduled payment to be made to the owner under the plan, comprising the steps of:
a) storing data relating to a variable annuity ac-count, including data relating to at least one of an account value, a withdrawal rate, a scheduled payment, a payout term and a period of benefit payments;
b) determining an initial scheduled payment;
c) periodically determining the account value associated with the plan and making the scheduled payment by withdrawing that amount from the account value;
d) monitoring for an unscheduled withdrawal made under the plan and adjusting the amount of scheduled withdrawal; and
e) periodically paying the scheduled payment to the owner for the period of benefit payments, even if the account value is exhausted before all payments have been made.
（編按，在請求項中使用"even if"...想必是很特殊的寫法，步驟(e)中文譯為：""即便"在支付全部費用之前帳戶價值耗盡（用完了、空了），可以依照支付計畫週期性地支付給所有人（owner）"。）
本案系爭專利在專利審查期間就是加入了這個「even if」來克服先前技術。
本案例中，原告主張被告侵權，系爭專利是方法步驟，在地院階段，法院解釋此step (e)，認為"even if"簡單地描述其中之一情境，藉此保證一定要完成支付，而不是要求「帳戶一定是空的」！判決侵權成立。
被告上訴CAFC（其中議題還有101）。
原告主張系爭專利step(e)中因為"even if"為附加條件，並沒有一定要執行，藉此來擴張專利範圍解釋。
被告Transamerica主張他們並未執行系爭專利的step(e)，第一，他們並未針對帳戶價值耗盡的情況設定策略，不會在帳戶耗盡的情況下支付費用；第二，他們並未實現在帳戶耗盡下進行支付的系統。
針對以上兩點主張以及主要爭點-step(e)，CAFC同意地院判定step(e)並未要求帳戶一定要耗盡，反之，不論帳戶價值如何，系爭專利的技術是要保障支付。基於此專利範圍解釋，原告可以不用證明被告產品要運作在帳戶耗盡時，而是要證明被告Transamerica在帳戶耗盡的情況下以電腦技術進行支付計畫（scheduled payment）。
經調查，在Transamerica提供的服務中，當客戶帳戶耗盡時，即停止支付計畫！據此判定侵權成立。（其中細節可以參考原文）
如此可知，系爭專利中step(e)中的"even if"後描述的條件成為侵權不成立的限制（編按，這句even if也是獲准專利的關鍵，魚與熊掌不能兼得）。
案例四：
承上述提到的案例Ex parte Schulhauser，特別是指其中系統範圍中以功能手段用語又搭配條件式的"天才"寫法，關於這種寫法，單純覺得這樣會有不明確（112(b)）問題，參考IPWatchdog的論點，系統中包括的「means for」與方法項的條件式寫法不同，不論這些條件是否符合，系統（system）都提供了這些功能手段，因此要判斷此項專利性，先前技術需要涵蓋所有的「means for」。
10. A system for monitoring of cardiac conditions incorporating an implantable medical device in a subject, comprising:
means for collecting physiological data associated with the subject from the implantable device at preset time intervals, wherein the collected data includes real-time electrocardiac signal data, heart sound data, activity level data and tissue perfusion data;
means for comparing the electrocardiac signal data with a threshold electrocardiac criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event;
means for triggering an alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria;
means for determining the current activity level of the subject from the activity level data if the electrocardiac signal data is within the threshold electrocardiac criteria;
means for determining whether the current activity level is below a threshold activity level;
means for comparing the tissue perfusion data with a threshold tissue perfusion criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event if the current activity level is determined to be below a threshold activity level;
means for triggering an alarm state if the threshold tissue perfusion data is not within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria; and
means for triggering an alarm state if the threshold tissue perfusion data is within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria and the heart sound data indicates that S3 and S4 heart sounds are detected,
wherein if an alarm state is not triggered, means for collecting the physiological data associated with the subject is at the expiration of the preset time interval.
因此，方法專利範圍與系統專利範圍所描述的「條件（if, else, whether or not, when ...）」，在解釋上會有差異。
IPWatchdog作者建議要避免以條件式寫法撰寫專利範圍。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言