前言：
我的理解是，EPO並沒有將AI看得多麼特別（至少相比美國而言），但仍有一些“調整/refine”，AI與其他技術領域一視同仁，專利要件包括新穎性、進步性、產業利用性、可實施性、claim元件有技術貢獻，以及解決技術問題的技術特徵。
不論任何發明，包括AI發明，要取得專利，專利要件是：
歐洲可專利標的（Patentable inventions）的規定在Art. 52 EPC:
(1)European patents shall be granted for any inventions, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application.
(2)The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a)discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b)aesthetic creations;
(c)schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d)presentations of information.
(3)Paragraph 2 shall exclude the patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to therein only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such. (如果是上述法定不可專利標的“本身”的發明不能取得專利)
歐洲的可專利性/要件（Patentability requirements）規定：https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2025/g_i_1.html
There are four basic requirements for patentability:
（(i)發明應屬一技術領域(2)可產業應用(3)有新穎特徵(4)具有進步性）
(i) there must be an "invention", belonging to any field of technology (see G‑II)
(ii) the invention must be "susceptible of industrial application" (see G‑III)
(iii) the invention must be "new" (see G‑IV to VI) and
(iv) the invention must involve an "inventive step" (see G‑VII).
Technical character is an implicit requirement for there to be an "invention" within the meaning of Art. 52(1) (requirement (i) above; see G‑II, 1 and 2 for more details).
In addition: （具有可實施性，應關於特定技術領域，解決技術問題，claims定義技術特徵）
– the invention must be such that a person skilled in the art ‒ after proper instruction by the application ‒ can carry it out (see F‑III, 3 for instances where this requirement is not met) and
– the invention must relate to a technical field (Rule 42(1)(a) – see F‑II, 4.2), must be concerned with a technical problem (Rule 42(1)(c) – see F‑II, 4.5) and must have technical features in terms of which the matter for which protection is sought can be defined in the claim (Rule 43(1) – see F‑IV, 2.1).
AI and Patentability：
AI視為電腦技術的一個分支，因此可專利性要求仍如CII（電腦實現發明），歐洲審查指南（Guidelines for Examination in the EPO, F-IV, 3.9）定義CII為包括電腦、網路或可程式裝置，並以電腦程式實現的發明。
EPO排除電腦程式“本身/as such”的可專利性，自然也是排除AI本身的可專利性，這點應該與大多數國家的主流觀點一致。
然而，EPO的開放態度是，電腦軟體若具有技術特點（technical character），不能排除其可專利性。
列舉擴大歐洲訴願委員會判例（Enlarged/ EPO Board of Appeal的決定即建立case law）- G 1/19，其中建立CII的可專利性架構（即適用AI發明）。
AI技術就是架構在電腦模型與數學演算法的技術，其本身/as such為抽象的本質，並不能賦予專利權，但是若應用在特定技術領域中解決特定技術問題，就是可專利的標的。（“Patents may be granted when AI leaves the abstract realm by applying it to solve a technical problem in a field of technology.”）
可參考EPO審查指南G-II, 3.3.1（人工智慧與機器學習，https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc/2024/g_ii_3_3_1.html），非常重要的一段內容是：AI技術如「向量機」、「推理引擎」或「神經網路」等可能僅是抽象模型或演算法，這樣的技術的“本身/on their own”並不見得是技術手段。
"Terms such as "support vector machine", "reasoning engine" or "neural network" may, depending on the context, merely refer to abstract models or algorithms and thus do not, on their own, necessarily imply the use of a technical means. This has to be taken into account when examining whether the claimed subject-matter has a technical character as a whole."
然而，若是發明為在裝置中使用「向量機」、「推理引擎」或「神經網路」以解決技術問題與達成特定技術目的，則仍是具有技術貢獻，EPO審查意見就不會直接依照Art. 52(2)駁回。
歐洲審查指南 - G‑II, 3.3列舉（舉例，不限制，是很好的參考）具有技術貢獻的數學方法如下：
- – controlling a specific technical system or process, e.g. an X-ray apparatus or a steel cooling process;
- – determining from measurements a required number of passes of a compaction machine to achieve a desired material density;
- – digital audio, image or video enhancement or analysis, e.g. de-noising, detecting persons in a digital image, estimating the quality of a transmitted digital audio signal;
- – separation of sources in speech signals; speech recognition, e.g. mapping a speech input to a text output;
- – encoding data for reliable and/or efficient transmission or storage (and corresponding decoding), e.g. error-correction coding of data for transmission over a noisy channel, compression of audio, image, video or sensor data;
- – encrypting/decrypting or signing electronic communications; generating keys in an RSA cryptographic system;
- – optimising load distribution in a computer network;
- – determining the energy expenditure of a subject by processing data obtained from physiological sensors; deriving the body temperature of a subject from data obtained from an ear temperature detector;
- – providing a genotype estimate based on an analysis of DNA samples, as well as providing a confidence interval for this estimate so as to quantify its reliability;
- – providing a medical diagnosis by an automated system processing physiological measurements.
其他參考資料：https://link.epo.org/web/common_practice_cii_ai_for_convergence_website_en.pdf（文中針對AI的可專利性沒有太多挑戰，但強調的是發明的技術性（有技術手段、解決技術問題）、新穎性、進步性、足夠的揭露內容以及claims的明確性。）
my two cents:
以上文章寫了約2小時（包括求證、引章據點、讀法條、整理），但結論就是，雖AI發明有特殊之處，但並沒有改變AI發明就是電腦實現發明（CII）的概念，因此一體適用可專利性的規定。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言