多年前曾有討論過專利範圍引用圖式的議題：引用圖示的權利範圍（about claims）（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2013/07/about-claims.html）。
【EPO】歐洲專利審查指南
EPC在專利範圍中引用說明書或圖式的規定如下。
3. The subject-matter of the search
3.2 Interpretation of claims
3.2.1 Claims with explicit references to the description or drawings
Although explicit references in the claims to features elucidated in the description or in the drawings are only permissible where "absolutely necessary" (Rule 43(6) – see also B‑III, 3.5 and F‑IV, 4.17), claims containing such references are still searched if these features are unambiguously defined by specific parts of the description. (歐洲專利法同意在專利範圍中明確引用說明書或圖式，但是在"絕對必要"時，如果引用特徵為明確定義，仍是要審查～)
However, where the reference does not clearly identify which subject-matter of the description and/or drawings is to be regarded as included in the claim, an invitation under Rule 63(1) is issued. In the special case of an "omnibus claim" (e.g. one reading: "The invention substantially as herein described"), no invitation under Rule 63(1) is issued, and the search report will subsequently be treated as complete. This means that this kind of subject-matter will be dealt with only during examination. (如果專利範圍不清楚指出說明書或是圖式，會作出不完整的檢索報告。)
The same procedure is followed regardless of whether or not the reference to the drawings and/or the description is allowable under Rule 43(6). In either case, the claim will have the same scope: if the reference is not allowable, the applicant will be asked to copy the definition of the technical feature from the description and/or drawings into the claim; if it is allowable, the claim will stay as it is. (如果不允許引用說明書或圖式，會被要求將引用段落複製到專利範圍中)
However, where the reference does not appear to be allowable under Rule 43(6), the search division will object to it in the search opinion (if applicable – see B‑XI, 7).
（以下引用的是PCT-EPO審查指南）
2.2 Interpretation of claims
2.2.1 Claims with explicit references to the description or drawings
Although explicit references in the claims to features elucidated in the description or in the drawings are only permissible where "absolutely necessary", if claims contain such references, the examiner should strive to search these technical features as long as they are unambiguously defined by specific parts of the description.
However, where the reference does not clearly identify which subject-matter of the description and/or drawings is to be considered as included in the claim, the examiner may informally contact the applicant for clarification before the search is carried out (see B‑VIII, 3.3). In the special case of "omnibus claims" (e.g. a claim reading "The invention substantially as herein described"), no request for informal clarification should be issued, and subsequently the search report will be designated as complete.
The procedure above should be followed regardless of whether or not the reference to the drawings and/or the description is allowable according to Rule 6.2(a).
Where the reference does not appear to be justified, the examiner should raise an objection in the written opinion.
【中華民國專利法審查基準】
【發明】
根據我國專利審查基準第二篇第1章2.3請求項 之記載形式規定，其中表示，在「有絕對必要且以明確為前提」(這是我的理解)，可以在申請專利範圍中引用圖式或說明書段落：
範例一：
列舉專利範圍中引用的圖一(A)如下，對照專利範圍是要描述其中「四只獨立感測元件」
範例二：
以上引用圖6：
其他範例：（引用＂說明書＂）
【新型】
我國專利審查基準第四篇第1章3.3. 2 申請專利範圍規定，表示「新型涉及之特定形狀"僅"能以圖形界定而無法以文字表示時，可以採用"如圖..."的用語」
這個規定其實2009年版就有了：
範例：
其中引用圖1如下：
my two cents:
發現，很多這樣寫的專利是大陸申請人。
是否必要且明確，事實上，新型是沒有被挑戰的，發明呢，多半是化學案有其必要。
(感謝同事分享)
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言