資料結構的具體實踐為可專利標的（筆記） - In re Warmerdam (Fed. Cir. 1994)

實務筆記

收到這樣的OA，引用已經形成MPEP的案例 - In re Warmerdam，也就觸發自己追根究柢的精神，卻也發現已經在2012年報導過「判斷資料結構的專利適格性」的經典案例 - In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361-62 (Fed. Cir. 1994)，距今12年前的報導至今該有些新的理解。

過去的報導：

- 實現數學方法的程式僅為抽象的資料結構不能專利（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2012/11/blog-post_27.html）

"  此案例造成一個電腦程式不可專利的判斷條件：(1)僅數學演算法，而沒有具體應用；(2)簡單操作抽象概念，而沒有具體應用。

Claims define non-statutory processes if they:

•    Consist solely of mathematical operations without some claimed practical application;
•    Simply manipulate abstract ideas without some claimed practical application e.g. the court held that a method of conducting a real estate bidding process was a mere manipulation of an abstract idea In re Schrader, 22 F.3d 290, 293-94, 30 USPQ2d 1455, 1458-59 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Court also held that a method for controlling the motion of objects and machines is simply a manipulation of abstract ideas; and the steps of "locating" a medial axis and "creating" a bubble hierarchy describes nothing more than the manipulation of basic mathematical constructs. In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1361-62, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1760 (Fed. Cir.).  "

 （編按，1994年有這樣的見解，之前我這裡的報導是2012年，還比Alice v. CLS Bank最高法院判決更早，顯見Alice v. CLS案應該有參考 - In re Warmerdam (Fed. Cir. 1994)。Alice v. CLS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)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/06/alice-corporation-pty-ltd-v-cls-bank.html））

- 專利可保護課題與電腦程式（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2012/11/blog-post_26.html）

" MPEP 2106.01 Computer-Related Nonstatutory Subject Matter

I.    FUNCTIONAL DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL: "DATA STRUCTURES" REPRESENTING DESCRIPTIVE MATERIAL PER SE OR COMPUTER PROGRAMS REPRESENTING COMPUTER LISTINGS PER SE

Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer-readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer-readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. "

我遇到的OA答案出來了，當專利範圍僅是描述資料結構（data structure），但不是應用在"computer-readable media"，就"functional descriptive material per se"（功能描述本身），這是不予專利的非法定可專利標的。

反過來說，當發明涉及data structure，就用"computer-readable media (或加上non-transitory)"來主張專利範圍，藉此"定義出資料結構與專利特徵之間的結構與功能性關聯性（"structural and functional interrelationships between data structure and claimed aspects of invention (software, hardware components)"）"。

也就是說，"data structure"的具體實踐就是"(non-transitory) computer-readable media/medium/storage"。

Ron