本篇討論「相互引用不同類別專利範圍的明確性議題」，本案副標題可為「系統引用方法項的引用式請求項」是否明確？
對於軟體發明，確實會用"a system performing the method according to claim 1"這類寫法，有時會被認同，依實情而定，核駁理由自然是因為不明確(112(b))，就"system"而言，總要界定出該有的結構。依照以下列舉範例，也常常被用到，但建議仍要界定出系統的結構或其周邊特徵。
以下範例可以得出一些寫法，主流的寫法是描述系統執行前項方法（方法特徵應為該發明主要特徵），但仍描述系統的結構。
範例一：US12227070
7. A system for displaying a warning message to warn of insufficient available drive power for use in an electric vehicle, the system performing the method according to claim 1, the system comprising:
a detector to detect measurement values for determining a latest output of an energy storage device of the electric vehicle;
a processor to determine a latest peak output and/or continuous output of the energy storage device based on the detected measurement values and for comparison of the latest peak output and/or continuous output with a threshold value of the peak output and/or continuous output; and
a display to display a warning message when the peak output and/or continuous output falls below the threshold value.
範例二：US11798026
11. A system for evaluating advertising effects of video content, the system performing the method according to claim 1 and comprising:
a display configured to display the video content comprising the character to the viewer;
a camera configured to capture a face of the viewer;
an image capturing unit configured to capture the video content;
an image analysis unit configured to extract the face areas of the character and the viewer from the images from the camera and the image capturing unit;
a micro-movement analysis unit configured to extract respective pieces of the facial micro-movement data (MMD) from the face areas of the character and the viewer, and analyze the similarity of the pieces of MMD of the character and the viewer; and
an advertising evaluation unit configured to evaluate advertising effects on the basis of the similarity.
範例三：US12417849
15. A system performing the method according to claim 1.
16. A non-transitory computer program stored in a computer-readable recording medium for executing the method according to claim 1.
範例四：US9208576
24. A robot or land, air, sea or space vehicle equipped with a system, including a depth estimation, motion estimation, object detection and/or object tracking system, performing the method according to claim 3, the system comprising at least one camera configured for depth estimation and a computing unit.
26. A vehicle with a driver assistance system performing the method according to claim 3 in order to compute a depth estimation value for at least one object in the input field of a stereo camera of the vehicle.
27. A computer program product embodied on a non-transitory computer-readable medium, said computer program product comprising software code portions being configured, when run on a processor, to perform the method according to claim 3.
範例五：US11566991
12. A device performing the method according to claim 1, wherein the device comprises at least two devices for sampling airborne particles and measurement of optical absorbance at any wavelength from 370 nm to 950 nm, and a computer for calculation of mineral dust concentration in any time point or sequence of time points.
經查範例五（16/999,874）的審查歷史，於申請時claims 11, 12如下：
Claim 11算大膽地使用"a device performing the method according to claim 1."結果審查意見認為這樣的範圍沒有邊界，裝置專利範圍沒有結構特徵，不清楚其中功能是否需要一些結構，或是僅是裝置運作的結果？
MPEP 2173.05(d)
MPEP 2173.05(d) Exemplary Claim Language ("for example," "such as")
Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. In those instances where it is not clear whether the claimed narrower range is a limitation, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph should be made. The examiner should analyze whether the metes and bounds of the claim are clearly set forth. Note that the mere use of the phrase "such as" or "for example" in a claim does not by itself render the claim indefinite.
（上述規定字面上很寬容，專利範圍使用"such as"或是"for example"本身並非造成專利範圍不明確，以下範例顯示MPEP用反證證明規定的寬容～ 實務上是不太會刻意挑戰審委底線。）
Examples of claim language which have been held to be indefinite because the intended scope of the claim was unclear are:
- (A) "R is halogen, for example, chlorine";
- (B) "material such as rock wool or asbestos" Ex parte Hall, 83 USPQ 38 (Bd. App. 1949);
- (C) "lighter hydrocarbons, such, for example, as the vapors or gas produced" Ex parte Hasche, 86 USPQ 481 (Bd. App. 1949);
- (D) "normal operating conditions such as while in the container of a proportioner" Ex parte Steigerwald, 131 USPQ 74 (Bd. App. 1961); and
- (E) "coke, brick, or like material". Ex parte Caldwell, 1906 C.D. 58 (Comm’r Pat. 1906).
The above examples of claim language which have been held to be indefinite are fact specific and should not be applied as per se rules. See MPEP § 2173.02 for guidance regarding when it is appropriate to make a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言