2022年12月23日 星期五

獨立請求項之間的矛盾(化學成分) - 歐洲訴願案T 0528/06

本篇討論獨立請求項之間的矛盾(contradiction between independent claims),案例為歐洲訴願案 - T 0528/06。


案件資訊:
案件編號:T0528/06
歐洲專利申請號:EP92310721.3
訴願決定日:Dec. 03, 2008

系爭案關於一種顆粒洗潔劑成分,就像是洗衣球,用膠囊包裝洗潔劑,請求項1記載的配方如下:

公告版:
1. A particulate detergent composition having a bulk density of at least 650 g/l, characterised in that it comprises:
(a) from 15 to 50 wt% of a surfactant system consisting essentially of:
(i) 60 to 100 wt% of ethoxylated nonionic surfactant which is a primary C8-C18 alcohol having an average degree of ethoxylation not exceeding 6.5 based on the total weight of the surfactant system,
(ii) 0 to 40 wt% of primary C8-C18 alkyl sulphate based on the total weight of the surfactant system;
(b) from 20 to 60 wt% of zeolite;
(c) optionally other detergent ingredients to 100 wt%; 
the composition being prepared by a wholly non-tower route by granulating the zeolite and surfactants in a high speed mixer/granulator.

本案系爭專利經舉發成立後,專利權人提起訴願,修正請求項1,限縮其中成分,修正後版本為:
1. A particulate detergent composition having a bulk density of at least 650 g/l, characterised in that it comprises:
(a) from 15 to 50 wt% of a surfactant system consisting essentially of:
(i) 60 to 95 wt% of ethoxylated nonionic surfactant which is a primary C8-C18 alcohol having an average degree of ethoxylation not exceeding 6.5 based upon the total weight of the surfactant system, and
(ii) 5 to 40 wt% of primary C8-C18 alkyl sulphate based upon the total weight of the surfactant system;
(b) from 25 to 48 wt% of zeolite,
(c) from 1 to 5 wt% of fatty acid soap,
(d) from 1 to 40 wt% of sodium carbonate,
(e) optionally other detergent ingredients to 100 wt%;
the composition being prepared by a wholly non-tower route by granulating the zeolite, surfactants and a fatty acid and an alkali or a fatty acid soap in a high speed mixer/granulator.

Claim 9描述的是備製claim 1的物品的方法:
9. A process for the preparation of a particulate detergent composition as claimed in claim 1, characterised in that it comprises
(i) preparing a surfactant system comprising the ethoxylated alcohol and the primary alkyl sulphate in acid or salt form in the form of a homogeneous liquid
blend, which also comprises the fatty acid and the alkali, or the fatty acid soap, and
(ii) agglomerating the homogeneous liquid surfactant blend with the zeolite and optionally other compatible ingredients in the high-speed mixer/granulator.

(補充:歐洲口審或訴願階段都可提出多個修正方案,一併提交至審查單位,本案也不例外,通過多個修正方案(requests)與訴願委員會交涉,取得共識。)

其中爭議的是,修正時引入原獲准公告的專利範圍沒有的特徵,如以上藍色粗體字的標示,甚至有彼此矛盾之處,也就是說,專利權人/申請人在後續救濟的程序中修正產生了專利範圍彼此無法依附甚至是因此造成不符單一性的問題

例如,本案系爭專利是在討論物品中的成分重量百分比(wt%),審查時就認為修正後claim 9加入的"surfactant system(表面活性劑)"生產時在所依附的claim 1中"5 wt%的primary C8-C18 alkyl sulphate"就無法含有95 wt%的"ethoxylated alcohol(乙氧基化的酒精)"。(換句話說,就是化學成分比例前後有矛盾,成分有上下限,後續依附的成分需要合理地符合此上限或下限,至少在極端情況下不能超過重量百分比100%,否則產生無法實施的問題。)

專利權人對此質疑提出反駁,認為其中有些成分要另外算/或是不屬於某個物質的一部分,不列入重量百分比的計算...等。

訴願決定:
訴願委員會認為,修正後專利範圍確實產生了前後比例矛盾的問題,且專利權人解釋的成分,如soap,產生問題,... "While Claim 1 requires that the composition contains 15 to 50 wt% of the surfactant system and 1 to 5 wt% of the soap, thus leaving 45 to 84 wt% to other ingredients, Claim 9 suggests that the soap is included in the 15 to 50 wt% of the surfactant system which allows the presence of 50 to 85 wt% of other ingredients."... 

也就是說,修正後專利範圍在所描述的成分重量百分比前後不一致,... "it is doubtful what amounts of soap are to be added in accordance with Claim 9 if the system contains the maximum amounts covered by Claim 1 of either 95 wt% of the nonionic surfactant or 40 wt% of the PAS, since Claim 1 also requires a minimum amount of 5 wt% of PAS and 60 wt% of the nonionic surfactant, respectively."...;"Nonetheless, the clarity problem remains the same due to the fact that according to Claim 1 the soap is mentioned separately, not as part of the surfactant system, whereas Claim 9 requires the contrary." ...

這時,有個小插曲,專利權人搬出了申請專利範圍使用的轉接用語"consisting essentially of"解釋其中成分重量百分比的合理性。然而,訴願委員會的回應是,說明書並未明確定義"consisting essentially of"用語,這是是模糊而沒有定義的轉接詞,主要是因為這個用語並沒有數量的涵義,也沒有排除以上關於前後成分矛盾的論述,也就是說,即便搬出這個"consisting essentially of"也無法合理化成分比例矛盾的問題,反倒還讓相關領域的人產生模糊不清的疑慮。

根據以上討論,訴願委員會駁回訴願理由,判定系爭專利無效。

my two cents:
專利也有化學課,且利用空泛的用語無法救贖實際不合理的問題。


Ron

沒有留言: