設計新穎性優惠期隨筆 - 35 U.S.C. 102

超有用內容：https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/apply/design-patent

發明與設計"本質上"的差異規定在MPEP 1502.01

差異包括：(A)專利期限不同（現行）：發明20年、設計15年；(B)設計專利沒有維護費用；(C)設計案僅能有一項專利範圍；(D)審查委員可酌情限制申請案中的多個發明，但設計案僅能一個設計；(E)國際發明申請案依照PCT規定，國際設計申請案則適用Hague協議；(F)發明案一般優先權期限為1年，設計案則是6個月；(G)發明申請案可以主張美國臨時申請案優先權，但設計案沒有；(H)發明與植物申請案有RCE程序，但設計案並沒有；(I)設計案有CPA審查程序（可比擬RCE）；(J)發明申請案有早期公開規定，設計申請案沒有。

摘錄MPEP關於"design"新穎性規定的段落（本篇以設計為主角，但規定都與utility申請案一致）：

MPEP 2152 Detailed Discussion of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a) and (b)（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2152.html）

MPEP 2153 Prior Art Exceptions Under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1) to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)（https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2153.html）

審查＂設計申請案＂新穎性時，同樣地須以其優先權作為有效申請日；若有阻礙新穎性的前案時，將考慮新穎性例外條款，AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A)排除條款限於排除創作人或其共同創作人或自創作人/共同創作人直接或間接取得的人在有效申請日前一年內＂已公開揭露/publicly disclosed＂的創作。（ps.可排除自己＂申請日前一年內＂的公開揭露）

MPEP 2153.01

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides exceptions to the prior art provisions of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). These exceptions limit the use of an inventor's or at least one joint inventor’s own work as prior art, when the inventor's or at least one joint inventor’s own work has been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor not more than one year before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is not prior art if the disclosure was made: (1) One year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) by the inventor or a joint inventor, or by another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. MPEP § 2153.01(a) discusses issues pertaining to inventor-originated disclosures within the grace period. MPEP § 2152.01 discusses the “effective filing date” of a claimed invention.

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B)排除條款用於排除＂設計被創作人、共同創作人或直接或間接取得的人公開揭露＂"之後"的揭露。條件是(1)有效申請日前一年內；(2)創作被創作人等"更早之前已公開揭露"。（ps.創作人自己的公開揭露可以排除其他人在後的揭露，這些揭露都應該在＂設計申請日前一年內＂）

ps.以下節錄內容的下半部就是討論"創作人之前的公開揭露"也應在創作"有效申請日"前一年內，才自己符合AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A)的grace period。

MPEP 2153.02

AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) provides an additional exception to the prior art provision of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1). AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) excepts as prior art a disclosure of subject matter that occurs after the subject matter had been publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor (i.e., an inventor-originated public disclosure). Specifically, AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(B) provides that a disclosure which would otherwise qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) (patent, printed publication, public use, sale, or other means of public availability) is excepted as prior art if: (1) the disclosure was made one year or less before the effective filing date of the claimed invention; and (2) the subject matter disclosed had been previously publicly disclosed by the inventor, a joint inventor, or another who obtained the subject matter directly or indirectly from the inventor or joint inventor. The previous inventor-originated public disclosure of the subject matter typically will be a disclosure within the one-year grace period (i.e., a grace period inventor-originated disclosure). However, if the previous inventor-originated public disclosure of the subject matter was made outside the grace period, that disclosure itself would qualify as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), and could not be excepted under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A). In other words, a previous inventor-originated public disclosure of the subject matter can be effective to establish that a grace period disclosure is excepted as prior art regardless of whether the previous inventor-originated disclosure was made within the grace period or not. MPEP § 2152.01 discusses the “effective filing date” of a claimed invention. MPEP § 2155.02 discusses the use of affidavits or declarations to show that the subject matter disclosed had, before such disclosure, been publicly disclosed by the inventor or a joint inventor, and MPEP § 2155.03 discusses the use of affidavits or declarations to show that the disclosure was made, or that the subject matter had been previously publicly disclosed, by another who obtained the subject matter disclosed directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor.

申請時是否要聲明「新穎性優惠期」的相關資訊，答案是可以不用，但提出聲明可以加快審查（寫在cross-reference (37 CFR 1.78)）。

Applicants can include a statement regarding any grace period inventor-originated public disclosures in the specification upon filing. See 37 CFR 1.77(b)(6) and MPEP § 608.01(a). In order to be effective to show that a grace period inventor-originated public disclosure is not prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) because the AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(1)(A) exception applies, the statement must convey the same information as would be required in a declaration under 37 CFR 1.130(a). See MPEP §§ 717.01(a)(1) , 2155.01, and 2155.03. An applicant is not required to identify any grace period inventor-originated public disclosures or to use the format specified in 37 CFR 1.77, but identifying any such disclosures may expedite examination of the application and save applicants (and the Office) the costs related to an Office action and reply. If the patent application specification as filed contains a specific reference to a grace period inventor-originated public disclosure, and an oath or declaration under 37 CFR 1.63 from the inventor or the appropriate joint inventor(s) has been made of record, the Office will consider it apparent from the specification that the grace period public disclosure is attributable to the inventor or a joint inventor, provided there is a sufficient explanation of why the exception applies to a particular disclosure and there is no other evidence to the contrary. The applicant should also provide a copy of the grace period inventor-originated public disclosure (e.g., copy of a printed publication). The format specified in 37 CFR 1.77(b)(6) may not be the basis to add information about inventor-originated grace period public disclosures to the specification after the filing date of the application. Such an amendment may be considered new matter. Applicants should use 37 CFR 1.130(a) to submit such information after filing.

Ron

專利適格性在促進AI創新的角色 - 筆記3

本篇繼前兩篇(已經是1年前了)再補一篇，內容是基於「The Role of Patent (In)Eligibility in Promoting Artificial Intelligence Innovation」的啟發：

- 專利適格性在促進AI創新的角色 - 筆記1（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2025/04/ai-1.html）

- 專利適格性在促進AI創新的角色 - 筆記2（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2025/04/ai-2.html）

前篇報導：考量AI發明的專利適格性，將AI技術分為三個層次： 

(1) data layer（資料層），這是關於用於訓練AI的訓練資料（training data）、測試資料（testing data）與驗證資料（validation data），經完成訓練後建立AI模型，AI模型最後根據輸入資料產生預測結果等的輸出資料。

(2) application layer（應用層）(i.e., software)，這是關於電腦軟體，通過軟體驅動AI系統執行相應的動作、作決定以及產生結果。舉例來說，深度學習模型讓AI搜尋抽象的數據，AI神經網路則是倚賴數學模型執行分析。

(3) system layer（系統層）(i.e., hardware)，這是關於AI系統的硬體，即電腦硬體。

（以下是我講義的片段）

1. Patent Eligibility of AI Data

2. Patent Eligibility of AI Applications

3. Patent Eligibility of AI Systems

順帶一提歐洲AI相關專利適格性：

4. AI Patent Litigation

TW：

US：

（訴訟面對到AI發明專利適格性議題時，被挑戰的不會僅是數學問題(這部分常常應該USPTO就解決了)，而是應用已知AI技術到特定應用上的情況）

（可參考本文下方補充內容）

5. AI Patent Prosecution

（面對(答辯)因為發明是抽象概念不具專利適格性的全面駁回的範例）

補充內容：

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html

MPEP 2106.05 Eligibility Step 2B: Whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More

A. Relevant Considerations For Evaluating Whether Additional Elements Amount To An Inventive Concept

The Supreme Court has identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements amount to an inventive concept. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (h).

Limitations that the courts have found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:

重要!（申請專利範圍中為法定例外不予專利時，其中可以具備＂實質超越／significantly more＂的元件：(i)電腦功能的改善，如DDR案；(ii)技術領域中的技術改良，如Diamond案；(iii)使用在特定機器；(iv)轉換特定物品到另一個狀態；(v)加入已知、常規或習知活動以外的特定限制，使發明有具體應用；(vi)發明具備超過連接法定例外到特定技術環境的有意義的限制。）

• i. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, e.g., a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage, as discussed in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258-59, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106-07 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
• ii. Improvements to any other technology or technical field, e.g., a modification of conventional rubber-molding processes to utilize a thermocouple inside the mold to constantly monitor the temperature and thus reduce under- and over-curing problems common in the art, as discussed in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981) (see MPEP § 2106.05(a));
• iii. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, e.g., a Fourdrinier machine (which is understood in the art to have a specific structure comprising a headbox, a paper-making wire, and a series of rolls) that is arranged in a particular way to optimize the speed of the machine while maintaining quality of the formed paper web, as discussed in Eibel Process Co. v. Minn. & Ont. Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64-65 (1923) (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
• iv. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, e.g., a process that transforms raw, uncured synthetic rubber into precision-molded synthetic rubber products, as discussed in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184, 209 USPQ at 21 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c));
• v. Adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application, e.g., a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of various computer components for filtering Internet content, as discussed in BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
• vi. Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, e.g., an immunization step that integrates an abstract idea of data comparison into a specific process of immunizing that lowers the risk that immunized patients will later develop chronic immune-mediated diseases, as discussed in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1066-68, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1499-1502 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)).

Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:

（申請專利範圍中為法定例外不予專利時，其中"不夠＂實質超越／significantly more＂的元件：(i)在電腦上應用法定例外(如抽象概念)；(ii)加入已知、常規與習知活動(高度普遍性)；(iii)在法定例外(如抽象概念)加入不重要的額外解決方案(extra-solution activity)；(iv)僅一般地連結法定例外到特定技術環境。）

• i. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f));
• ii. Simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, e.g., a claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(d));
• iii. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, e.g., mere data gathering in conjunction with a law of nature or abstract idea such as a step of obtaining information about credit card transactions so that the information can be analyzed by an abstract mental process, as discussed in CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)); or
• iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).

Ron

產品與流程在一起的專利範圍明確性 - IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005)

今天與客戶討論一種"system claim with method steps"的寫法，這類專利範圍主要是因為system本身結構都是習知，但其中運行的方法才有新穎與進步特徵，簡化的寫法大概就是"a system performing a method comprising:"，但這類"hybrid claims"寫法的風險可能會落於不明確，這是可以從"IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005)"判例得出，參考以下列舉MPEP 2173.05(p)提到"product by process / product and process"的專利範圍解釋問題。

I. "product-by-process"是以流程定義/製造產品的專利範圍，也就是專利標的是裝置、產品或是材料成分（可能沒有專利特徵），但要引用其中運行的流程或是製造產品的流程。但這類專利範圍能夠清楚指向（directed to）裝置或產品，就沒有不明確問題。

II. 單一項專利範圍涵蓋裝置與方法步驟，這種專利範圍寫法並不陌生，但常有不明確（35U.S.C.112(b)）的疑慮，但如以上(I)的說法，如果系統/裝置專利範圍中涵蓋流程步驟，若這些步驟並非指向系統，就會被判定是不明確。

引用案例－IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005)，其中系統專利範圍（system claim）引述了"input means"，但其中要求使用者使用"input means"被判定是不明確，主要理由是：如果不清楚當有人製造"讓人使用input means的系統"是否為侵權？或是，當有人真正使用Input means是否侵權？這樣的專利範圍就為不明確。

MPEP 2173.05(p) Claim Directed to Product-By- Process or Product and Process

I. PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS

A product-by-process claim, which is a product claim that defines the claimed product in terms of the process by which it is made, is proper.Purdue Pharma v. Epic Pharma, 811 F.3d 1345, 1354, 117 USPQ2d 1733, 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016); In re Luck, 476 F.2d 650, 177 USPQ 523 (CCPA 1973); In re Pilkington, 411 F.2d 1345, 162 USPQ 145 (CCPA 1969); and In re Steppan, 394 F.2d 1013, 156 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1967). A claim to a device, apparatus, manufacture, or composition of matter may contain a reference to the process in which it is intended to be used without being objectionable under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, so long as it is clear that the claim is directed to the product and not the process.

An applicant may present claims of varying scope even if it is necessary to describe the claimed product in product-by-process terms. Ex parte Pantzer, 176 USPQ 141 (Bd. App. 1972).

II. PRODUCT AND PROCESS IN THE SAME CLAIM

A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In Katz, a claim directed to “[a] system with an interface means for providing automated voice messages…to certain of said individual callers, wherein said certain of said individual callers digitally enter data” was determined to be indefinite because the italicized claim limitation is not directed to the system, but rather to actions of the individual callers, which creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005), in which a system claim that recited “an input means” and required a user to use the input means was found to be indefinite because it was unclear “whether infringement … occurs when one creates a system that allows the user [to use the input means], or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means.”); Ex parteLyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) (claim directed to an automatic transmission workstand and the method of using it held ambiguous and properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph).

------------------------------------------------------------

IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005)案例資訊：

原告／上訴人／專利權人：IPXL HOLDINGS, L.L.C.

被告／被上訴人：AMAZON.COM, INC.

系爭專利：US6,149,055

判決日期：November 21, 2005

案件源起IPXL對Amazon提出侵權告訴，主張Amazon的"1-click"系統侵害系爭專利claims 1, 2, 9, 15, 25專利權，但地方法院在簡易判決中判定侵權不成立、所有主張侵權的專利範圍無效，並且判決原告應返還律師費用給Amazon，IPXL在所有議題都輸。

系爭專利範圍的爭議是，Claim涉及一個電子金融交易系統，其中描述系統讓使用者執行金融交易，Claim 1中有描述"input mechanism enables a user to use the transaction information to execute a financial transaction or to enter selections to specify one or more transaction parameters"，其提供使用者"人為介入"輸入交易資訊執行金融交易，輸入選擇以指定交易參數，被判定是不明確。

被告Amazon的"1-click"system的運作是讓使用者事先提供交易資訊，如信用卡、地址，之後只要一鍵就完成交易，而不需要輸入這些資訊。以下就摘錄判決文中描述的"1-click"系統的運作，發現，其實完成交易後還會等90分鐘讓消費者修改訂單，之後才執行結帳、交貨、請款。

地院判定是被告"1-click"系統被系爭專利範圍所讀入，更認為系爭專利並不具備新穎性（US5,389,773），還認為專利範圍claim 25不明確。

25. The system of claim 2 wherein the predicted transaction information comprises both a transaction type and transaction parameters associated with that transaction type, and the user uses the input means to either change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction type and transaction parameters.

（判決文還揭露了Amazon律師費用 - $1,674,645.82，但此案，地院判定要返還，但CAFC判定不用返還）

（本篇僅討論不明確問題）

關於本案系爭專利無效（指主張侵權的幾項），其中claims 1, 2, 9, 15是不具備新穎性；claim 25則不具備明確性。

Indefiniteness of Claim 25

地院判決claim 25不明確是認為其中同時包括了系統與使用該系統的方法，因為違反35U.S.C. 112(b)所規定"claims of a patent particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention"。

但是否一項專利範圍同時描述系統與方法就為不明確？這裡引用BPAI意見，主要理由還是從是否可以執行侵權判斷來看，表示這樣的範圍並不容易讓人確認專利範圍，以及其行為是否侵權？

無法交代競爭者其範圍為何？

不明確理由：

CAFC判決侵權不成立、系爭專利(主張侵權的範圍)無效，但因為Amazon沒有及時判定原告不必返還律師費用給被告。

my two cents:

這類專利範圍，小心寫就是，或是風險太大就不要這樣寫（主要判斷依據是判斷是否使用者執行相關流程/步驟時會引發侵權？即＂whether infringement occurs when the user actually performs steps (uses the input means to change transaction information or uses the input means to accept a displayed transaction)＂），但判定上仍有不同意見，往後會有其他案例分享。

舉例來說，在案例Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (CAFC 2017)中，法官判定是，雖如案例IPXL判決是同時包括方法與裝置的範圍不明確，但並非所有使用"功能"的裝置都是不明確：

CAFC判決文：https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/05-1009.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/pm2r6fqdepy5av6t8uzh8d0ixlxj4smu）

------------------------------------------------------------

另案會討論的是案例（其中引用IPXL案例）－Mastermine Software, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (CAFC 2017)

CAFC判決文：https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/16-2465.opinion.10-26-2017.1.pdf

Ron

不同類別專利範圍相互依附的明確性議題

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？

申請人很直覺反應地將Claim 12的結構描述併入Claim 11，    

my two cents:

我想，這件範例的審查委員與申請人都很直覺地反應這樣的專利範圍，一個認為缺乏結構特徵，一個就修正將結構特徵併入範圍。

但如上述範例三，審查委員又對這樣的專利範圍"無動於衷"，審查意見中完全沒有提出不明確的意見。

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

"substantially"案例討論 - In re Nehrenberg (CCPA 1960)

"substantially" - In re Nehrenberg (CCPA 1960)

USPTO將此案列為引用案例：

MPEP2173.05(b)

III. Approximations

專利說明書或是專利範圍內使用"substantially"（實質上）通常是用來描述特定特徵，例如“實質上垂直於...”、“實質上相同於...”與“實質上增加”等，目的應該就是希望可以比較"不受限又不過份地"所要描述的技術用語的意思，而能較廣地解釋專利範圍。但是挑戰就是Claim中使用substantially是否明確？

D.“Substantially”

The term “substantially” is often used in conjunction with another term to describe a particular characteristic of the claimed invention. It is a broad term. In re Nehrenberg, 280 F.2d 161, 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). The court held that the limitation “to substantially increase the efficiency of the compound as a copper extractant” was definite in view of the general guidelines contained in the specification. In re Mattison, 509 F.2d 563, 184 USPQ 484 (CCPA 1975). The court held that the limitation “which produces substantially equal E and H plane illumination patterns” was definite because one of ordinary skill in the art would know what was meant by “substantially equal.” Andrew Corp.v.Gabriel Electronics, 847 F.2d 819, 6 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

以上段落在兩個案件中判定substantially用語為明確，其一是參考一般指引，另一是基於相關領域一般技術人員的理解（“substantially”等相對用語是否明確取決於相關領域一般技術人員能否合理地確定其意義，如果一般技術人員根據用語在說明書中的上下文中可以合理地確定，則為明確，反之就不明確）。

案例：In re Nehrenberg (CCPA 1960)（CCAP: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals）

上訴案號：No. 6568

系爭專利申請號：No.416,295

判決日期：July 6, 1960

案件源起美國專利局訴願委員會“確認/affirm”USPTO駁回系爭專利申請案的決定，Claim 1如下：

Claim 1: A stainless and heat resistant steel of substantially homogeneous (實質上同質) and ferritic structure (鐵素體結構) consisting essentially of: 19 to 30% chromium, 0.2 to 1% each of silicon and manganese, 0.1 to 1% aluminum, up to 1% each of molybdenum and copper, 0.05 to 0.1% carbon, up to 0.5% nickel, up to 0.2% nitrogen, and the balance iron, in which the elements aforesaid are so proportioned that the combined content of chromium, silicon and molybdenum plus ten times the aluminum content minus the nickel content and thirty times the combined content of carbon and nitrogen, is at least 21%."

面對先前技術，本案上訴人在答辯時說明：發明提出一種具有同質結構的全鐵素體不銹鋼（"This invention pertains to ferritic stainless steels, and provides a wholly ferritic stainless steel of homogeneous structure, ...."），但是，系爭專利說明書中並沒有定義“homogeneous”，法院假定（自為解釋）這在鋼鐵技術的意義是“鋼材具有均勻的晶格結構”（"it is used in the technical sense that the steel has a uniform crystal lattice throughout"）。

在此一提的是，Ferritic steels（鐵素體鋼）具有磁性與耐腐蝕的特性，並且無需熱處理即可硬化，相應地，系爭專利說明書記載：Ferritic steels可以通過“鉻、矽、鉬和鋁的含量與碳、氮和鎳的含量”之間適當的比例生產，並且以公式表示這些成分的比例，得出較廣範圍的比例與較佳範圍的比例，專利範圍界定出符合這個公式但有不同用量的成分。

但是USPTO審查意見引用的主要前案No. 2,624,668（核駁理由主要參考依據）已經揭露這些鋼材元素與差不多的成分比例，也有前案揭示了適當成分比例、含量與其結構之間的平衡。

訴願委員會針對系爭專利申請案Claims 1, 2, 3與主要前案之間的各種成分比例的比較表：

比較後可知成分比例雖有差異，但都算“實質地重疊”，上訴人/專利申請人主張這些成分比例都是依照知識計算得出，並不能說是被前案所涵蓋，但是即便考慮了專利申請人提出的公式，但審查意見仍指出系爭申請案專利範圍已經落入先前技術揭示內容中，法院同樣判定無法准予專利權。

在此有個議題是，系爭案申請人聲稱系爭發明（實質上同質/結構均勻的全鐵素體不銹鋼：wholly ferritic stainless steel of homogeneous structure）是先前技術等“擁擠與極具競爭”技術中的變體（variant），但法院認為系爭申請案說明書並未有相關指引讓技術人員可以得出"substantially"的程度（degree），且主要先前技術已經揭露「實質為鐵素體」的不銹鋼（“substantially ferritic” stainless steel），使得系爭專利範圍並不能與主要前案區隔，也就是以上變體並不足以克服顯而易見的核駁意見。

"We are not aided by the specification herein in determining what degrees are included within the broad term “substantially.”"

其中substantially引起明確性（35 U.S.C. § 112）議題，系爭專利範圍Claim使用了“substantially homogeneous”用語可能導致不明確，如此，法院認為，如果說明書提供了一些指引 （guidelines），則可以作為答辯“substantially等相對性用語”不明確核駁意見的依據，但是本案並無法知道substantially的程度，因此使專利範圍為不明確的狀態。

判決原文：https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/251412/application-of-alvin-e-nehrenberg/

參考資料：

https://blueironip.com/ufaqs/how-is-the-term-substantially-interpreted-in-patent-claims/

https://mriplaw.com/2022/12/22/7mfp4zmbkmbts9p4fjfgdmplr3405t/

https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/application-of-nehrenberg-patent-893748941

Ron

程度用語 - MPEP 2173.05(b) 筆記

2014曾有篇報導 - 請求項使用的相對用語（about Claims）- Datamize v. Plumtree (Fed. Cir. 2005)案例討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/12/about-claims-datamize-v-plumtree-fed.html），看來當年的MPEP 2173(b)與現在版本有些差異。

MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology

（＂相對用語＂中的的＂程度用語／TERM OF DEGREE＂）

開宗明義，「程度用語」不必然是不明確的。

在專利範圍中以"程度"描述元件特徵是否明確主要是領域的問題，例如在奈米尺度下描述元件的特性，如高度(e.g., 約5mm)、寬度、比重/濃度(e.g., about 5%)、電氣特徵...，用"模糊"用語來描述，並不會不明確。

在MPEP2173.05(b)I中提到案例 - Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)，針對專利範圍用語的明確性，參考說明書中是否提出一些明確的解釋。

針對程度用語，階段一：查驗說明書內容是否支持如何量測所述程度？如果說明書沒有提供量測其程度的標準，階段二：由相關領域一般技術人員判斷是否可以確認專利範圍？

可參考本部落格的報導 - 專利範圍的用語明確性需要客觀邊界 - Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2025/10/interval-licensing-llc-v-aol-inc-fed.html）。

MPEP 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology

I. TERMS OF DEGREE 

專利範圍中程度用語是否明確，需要考量說明書與審查歷史，藉此確認所述程度用語是否有客觀的邊界（objective boundary）。

階段一：... when a term of degree is used in the claim, the examiner should determine whether the specification provides some standard for measuring that degree.

階段二：If the specification does not provide some standard for measuring that degree, a determination must be made as to whether one of ordinary skill in the art could nevertheless ascertain the scope of the claim.

對於程度用語，說明書撰寫原則是，即便沒有精確的量測數值，需要提供範例或是量測其程度的教示。（"The claim is not indefinite if the specification provides examples or teachings that can be used to measure a degree even without a precise numerical measurement (e.g., a figure that provides a standard for measuring the meaning of the term of degree."）

審查答辯過程可以嘗試解決不明確程度用語的問題，申請人在審查過程中可以通過提供證據（主要指內部證據）解釋專利範圍中的程度用語，藉此證明相關領域一般技術人員經參考說明書可以確認所述程度用語的邊界。（"During prosecution, an applicant may also overcome an indefiniteness rejection by providing evidence that the meaning of the term of degree can be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in the art when reading the disclosure."）

參考案例 - Enzo Biochem, 599 F.3d at 1335, 94 USPQ2d at 1328，針對專利範圍用語"not interfering substantially/不實質干擾"，申請人提出宣告（declaration under 37 CFR 1.132 ），列出八個特定連接群（linkage groups）證明沒有實質干擾。

最後，原則是，當專利範圍中使用＂相對用語＂時，如果相對習知技術的改進完全取決於元件的尺寸或重量（都是屬於相對用語），則公開標準的充分性就顯得更為重要。（"When relative terms are used in claims wherein the improvement over the prior art rests entirely upon size or weight of an element in a combination of elements, the adequacy of the disclosure of a standard is of greater criticality."）

Ron

專利範圍的用語明確性需要客觀邊界 - Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014)

MPEP 2173在「程度用語/terms of degree」一節引用案例 - Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 766 F.3d 1364, 1370, 112 USPQ2d 1188, 1192-93 (Fed. Cir. 2014)，此案例也曾在討論「說明書使用"e.g."不會形成限制」議題時被引用，如本部落格文章 - "i.e."與"e.g."的解釋專利範圍討論 - Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/07/ieeg-rembrandt-wireless-technologies-lp.html）。

Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc.(Fed. Cir. 2014)案例資訊：

原告/上訴人：INTERVAL LICENSING LLC

被告/被上訴人：AOL, INC., APPLE, INC., GOOGLE, INC., YAHOO! INC.

系爭專利：US6,034,652、US6,788,314

判決日期：September 10, 2014

本案被告都是"超大咖"，顯得這是一件頗有張力的案例，也成為MPEP針對「程度用語」的明確性引用案例。本案原告Interval針對地方法院作出的判決「(1)'652與'314多項專利範圍因為"不明確"判為無效；(2)'652的claims 15-18侵權不成立」提起上訴。

系爭專利提出對顯示器附近的人員的注意力管理器（attention manager），可以從顯示內容中生成影像，再將影像顯示在顯示器"沒有使用的空間"上，也就是現在講的跳出視窗（pop-up window），藉此吸引人員觀看，如下示意圖。

在2010年，Inverval以上述系爭專利對AOL等人提出侵權告訴，被告們分工分開對系爭專利提起美國複審程序（reexamination），結果USPTO判定系爭專利有效，地院則繼續審查。

在解釋專利範圍時，多數專利範圍都涵蓋這句話 - "in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user"（使用不引人注目而不會分散使用者注意力的方式），

列舉'314的Claim 1如下，其中描述「吸引顯示器附近人員周邊注意力（peripheral attention）的方法」，包括提供內容數據到顯示系統、提供指令至顯示系統以能"使用不引人注目而不會分散使用者注意力的方式"，從內容數據中產生影像，接著檢查顯示內容，以根據設定的時間顯示所產生的影像。

1. A method for engaging the peripheral attention of a person in the vicinity of a display device, comprising the steps of:

providing one or more sets of content data to a content display system associated with the display device and located entirely in the same physical location as the display device;

providing to the content display system a set of instructions for enabling the content display system to selectively display, in an unobtrusive manner that does not distract a user of the display device or an apparatus associated with the display device from a primary interaction with the display device or apparatus, an image or images generated from a set of content data; and

auditing the display of sets of content data by the content display system;

wherein the one or more sets of content data are selected from a plurality of sets of content data, each set being provided by an associated content provider, wherein each associated content provider is located in a different physical location than at least one other content provider and each content provider provides its content data to the content display system independently of each other content provider and without the content data being aggregated at a common physical location remote from the content display system prior to being provided to the content display system, and wherein for each set the respective content provider may provide scheduling instructions tailored to the set of content data to control at least one of the duration, sequencing, and timing of the display of said image or images generated from the set of content data.

地方法院解釋系爭專利範圍，認為專利範圍不明確，理由包括：(1)系爭專利說明書並沒有提供客觀的標準（objective standard）定義「unobtrusive manner/不引人注目的方式」，以及(2)因為在判斷「被告侵權產品是否符合專利範圍的限制」時取決在持續變化的情境下的使用。

判決也提到其他專利元件的解釋，如attention manager, detects that the user is not engaged in a primary interaction or as a background of the computer screen, instructions...等，2013年判決：基於這些專利範圍的解釋，認為系爭專利範圍（主張權利的21項範圍）不明確，也判定'652的claims 15-18侵權不成立。

Interval上訴CAFC。

CAFC階段：

針對35 U.S.C. § 112議題，引用最高法院案例 - Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc. (2014)，當參考專利說明書與審查歷史，若專利範圍並未能合理而確實地表達其發明的範圍，專利權即因不明確而無效。

案例介紹：最高法院對明確性的態度 - Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc.（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/06/nautilus-inc-v-biosig-instruments-inc.html）。

（重要）35 U.S.C. § 112明確性的標準是：112規定不外乎是要求專利權人，在允許一些模糊（較廣地）的情況下，有義務地清楚地向公眾表達其專利權範圍。

CAFC在解釋本案專利範圍時，先說明「程度用語並非一定是不明確」，認為系爭專利範圍中「unobtrusive manner」是一種程度用語（term of degree），當發明內容提供相關領域技術人員足夠確定的內容，就不會有不明確問題。

根據上述最高法院Nautilus案例意旨，不會要求專利範圍有絕對的精確性，在案例 - Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Applera Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2010)中，法院認為，即便沒有明確的數值測量，也不會認為其中用語"not interfering substantially"有不明確的問題。

"... holding that the claim phrase “not interfering substantially” was not indefinite even though the construction “define[d] the term without reference to a precise numerical measurement.”

顯見，美國法院對於專利範圍的明確性標準是頗寬的，主要是希望說明書有支持、參考相關領域一般技術人員的認知，且表示模糊的字眼不一定固有地不明確。然而，即便沒有要求絕對或是數學性的精確性，但在專利範圍解釋的明確性上仍有標準，最高法院在案例 - Datamize v. Plumtree (Fed. Cir. 2005)中指示，唯有因為法院可以賦予專利範圍幾種意思時，專利範圍才不滿足明確性要求。

參考案例：請求項使用的相對用語（about Claims）- Datamize v. Plumtree (Fed. Cir. 2005)案例討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/12/about-claims-datamize-v-plumtree-fed.html）。

就本案而言，法院認為本案系爭專利用語「unobtrusive manner」，經參考說明書與審查歷史，並沒有客觀的邊界（objective boundary），導致法院解釋專利範圍為幾個不同的事情，也就是專利範圍沒有表達出明確的意思。

在案例 - Halliburton Energy Service Inc. v. M-I LLC (Fed. Cir. 2008)中，法院表示即使專利權人可以明確論述說明書支持專利範圍的明確性，但並非表示完成調查，即便專利範圍用語的定義可以簡化為文字，如果相關領域一般技術人員不能解釋其定義為有意義與精確的專利範圍，專利範圍仍不明確。

"The fact that [the patent holder] can articulate a definition supported by the specification . . . does not end the inquiry. Even if a claim term’s definition can be reduced to words, the claim is still indefinite if a person of ordinary skill in the art cannot translate the definition into meaningfully precise claim scope."

參考案例：明確性案例 - Halliburton Energy Service Inc. v. M-I LLC (Fed. Cir. 2008)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/09/halliburton-energy-service-inc-v-m-i.html）。

因此，法院判定系爭專利範圍中「“unobtrusive manner”」為高度主觀的用語，缺乏客觀的邊界。

即便在其他用語解釋上具有明確性，但主要因為「“unobtrusive manner”」不明確，使得CAFC確定地院判決系爭專利多數專利範圍不明確而無效的決定。在此忽略侵權議題。

CAFC判決：同意地方法院判決「'652與'314多項專利範圍因為"不明確"判為無效」，但否決地方法院對'652部分專利範圍的解釋而判定侵權不成立的判決。

2014年CAFC判決文：https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/13-1282.opinion.9-9-2014.1.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/3qb6t0ejcj7xq9h8ru86ijnr78qajth4）

2018年CAFC判決文：https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/16-2502.opinion.7-20-2018.pdf（針對2014年部分否決地院不侵權判決的幾項專利範圍（'652的claims 15-18）的後續上訴案，後來這幾項專利範圍變成101議題）

Ron