Terminal Disclaimer這樣改的話對專利權人有影響！

標題「Terminal Disclaimer Practice to Obviate Nonstatutory Double Patenting」很正常，但內文提及的修法方向恐怕是讓TD決定變得有點棘手。

現行TD的規定已經有相當的限制，包括通過TD聯繫在一起的專利不能分別主張專利權，且應在仍由同一申請人擁有的情況下才能行使專利權。

37 CFR § 1.321 - Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers.

...

(c) A terminal disclaimer, when filed to obviate judicially created double patenting in a patent application or in a reexamination proceeding except as provided for in paragraph (d) of this section, must: 

(1) Comply with the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of this section; 

(2) Be signed in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section if filed in a patent application or in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section if filed in a reexamination proceeding; and 

(3) Include a provision that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the judicially created double patenting.

(d) A terminal disclaimer, when filed in a patent application or in a reexamination proceeding to obviate double patenting based upon a patent or application that is not commonly owned but was disqualified as prior art as set forth in either § 1.104(c)(4)(ii) or (c)(5)(ii) as the result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement, must: 

(1) Comply with the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of this section; 

(2) Be signed in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section if filed in a patent application or be signed in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section if filed in a reexamination proceeding; and 

(3) Include a provision waiving the right to separately enforce any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding and the patent or any patent granted on the application which formed the basis for the double patenting, and that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent and the patent, or any patent granted on the application, which formed the basis for the double patenting are not separately enforced.

修法後，簡單的結論是：

1) TD目的是讓同一申請人通過同意放棄多餘的期限讓"相似"（彼此僅有顯而易見的差異/obviously distinct）專利案都可以核准專利。

2) 同一申請人可能濫用多件"相似"專利的權利，被影響的一方（如侵權被告）需要花費極大的成本對抗（如對個別專利提出無效程序）這些權利。

3) 若要避免申請人濫用通過TD取得的多件專利權，根據修法方向，若通過TD而取得的專利其中之一（任一claim）被判無效，其餘專利則無法行使權利。

4) 這樣的話，可能可以節省司法資源，也可以降低TD的使用，更可以減少以TD避免「non-statutory double patenting」而獲准的專利數量。

5) 申請人將避免使用TD，而更著重專利之間的非顯而易見的差異，專利的個別化特徵將更明確。

6) 通過此措施剝奪專利權人的一些權利可能有利於產業發展（這是看是依據誰的角度）。

先定義通過同一TD獲准的兩件以上專利是彼此"tie（聯繫）"在一起。

以後，當要通過terminal disclaimer(TD)排除「non-statutory double patenting」的核駁理由，同時需要簽署一個agreement，同意通過TD獲准的專利＂僅能當專利並未直接或間接聯繫(tie)也從未聯繫於其他通過TD排除非法定重複專利而獲准的專利中有任一專利權項(claim)被最終判定無效時＂才能主張專利權（enforceable）。

不太會翻，但是主要意思是，反過來講，當通過TD獲准的專利中，有任一專利中的任一專利權項被USPTO、法院判定無效，所聯繫的所有專利都無法行使專利權。

看來是有點合理，因為這些專利範圍之間的差異不大，一起無法行使專利權可理解，但是是否所有專利範圍彼此都是"顯而易見"的差異，或是與無效的該項之間僅有顯而易見的差異，顯然多數不是這樣，只是因為TD提供的方便的處理方式。

因此，如果此修法正式實施，申請人應盡量迴避不要使用TD，讓專利之間差異可以更大，使專利之間有"非顯而易見的差異"，要不然這個agreement可能影響將來行使專利的權利。

USPTO預備調整TD後專利權的效力：https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2024-10166.pdf

Ron

PTA/PTE與ODP/TD之傻傻分不清楚～ - IN RE: CELLECT, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2023)

前言：

本篇本來名稱為：「PTA/PTE為不同法律框架而有不同的ODP與TD影響 - IN RE: CELLECT, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2023)」，後來改為PTA/PTE與ODP之傻傻分不清楚～

專利期限補償（簡稱＂PTA（patent term adjustment）＂）規範於「35 U.S. Code § 154(b) - Contents and term of patent; provisional rights」，用於補償因為官方審查過程延遲所造成的專利期限的損失，相關資訊可參考：期末拋棄（TD）優先於專利期限調整（PTA）（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/04/tdpta.html）。

專利期限延長（簡稱＂PTE（patent term extension）＂）規範於「35 U.S. Code § 156 - Extension of patent term」，是在特定情況下（如等待新藥獲准）獲准延長的專利期限。

例如：專利期限延長（Patent Term Extension）

TPP要求簽署國同意補償不當延遲的專利期限，如美國的PTA，相關可延長期限的理由包括藥品檢驗的「不合理」延遲，如從申請日開始超過5年獲准專利。

因為延長了新藥期限（平均約至少兩年），會影響學名藥上市，讓專利權人延遲在開發中國家的低價市場推出新藥的時間。可能讓開發新藥者提供不完整數據，讓檢驗沒有效率。會讓低價市場無法取得新藥。新藥可能在開發中國家過期，但是卻仍在開發中國家保有獨占權。

本案例有興趣的部分是涉及因為重複專利（double patenting（其中顯而易見性重複專利簡稱＂ODP（obviousness-type double patenting）＂））提出終權聲明（terminal disclaimer（簡稱＂TD＂））所影響的專利期限補償（簡稱＂PTA（patent term adjustment）＂），以及延長的專利期限（簡稱＂PTE（patent term extension）＂）。

案件資訊：

專利權人/上訴人：IN RE: CELLECT, LLC

系爭案：US6,982,742、US6,424,369、US6,452,626、US7,002,621（PTAB No. 90/014,453, 90/014,454, 90/014,455, 90/014,457）

判決日期：August 28, 2023

本案緣起專利權人Cellect對Samsung提起侵權訴訟，Samsung對系爭專利提起再審無效（ex parte reexaminations），無效理由是主張各系爭專利部分申請專利範圍彼此為顯而易見式重複專利（obviousness-type double patenting (“ODP”)）。

專利權人Cellect針對PTAB對自己的4件專利部分專利範圍的再審案/無效（ex parte reexamination）作出"不具非顯而易知性"的決定提出上訴。

這4件專利關於「PDA/個人數位助理」，如'742提出的小型手持電腦，可以拍攝影像、定位、連線網路...，4件系爭專利最早都可以溯及1997年專利母案（08/944,322）的優先權日。

專利申請歷史：

US6,982,742 - Continuation-in-part of application No. 09/638,976, filed on Aug. 15, 2000, now Pat. No. 6,424,369, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 09/496.312, filed on Feb. 1, 2000, now Pat. No. 6,275,255, which is a continuation of application No. 09/175,685, filed on Oct. 20, 1998, now Pat. No. 6,043,839, which is a continuation-in-part of appli cation No. 08/944,322, filed on Oct. 6, 1997, now Pat. No. 5,929,901.

US6,424,369 - Continuation-in-part of application No. 09/496.312, filed on Feb. 1, 2000, which is a continuation of application No. 09/175,685, filed on Oct. 20, 1998, now Pat. No. 6,043,839, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 08/944, 322, filed on Oct. 6, 1997, now Pat. No. 5,929,901.

US6,452,626 - Continuation-in-part of application No. 09/496.312, filed on Feb. 1, 2000, which is a continuation of application No.09/175,685, filed on Oct. 20, 1998, now Pat No. 6,043,839,which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 08/944,322 filed on Oct. 6, 1997, now Pat. No. 5929,901.

US7,002,621 - Continuation-in-part of application No. 09/613,027, filed on Jul. 10, 2000, which is a continuation-in-part of application No. 09/496,312, filed on Feb. 1, 2000, now Pat. No. 6,275,255, which is a continuation of application No. 09/175,685, filed on Oct. 20, 1998, now Pat. No. 6,043,839, which is a continuation-in part of application No. 08/944,322, filed on Oct. 6, 1997, now Pat. No. 5,929,901.

系爭專利都是源自相同母案的延續案，如CIP等，因此理論上除了有PTA外應該同時過期。法院整理以下家譜，還整理出PTA：

紅色框者為系爭專利：

--- ex parte reexamination ---
USPTO審查委員審理Samsung提起的reexamination，判定被挑戰的系爭專利多項專利權為之前已經過期的前案的明顯的變形（obvious variants，意思是本次被挑戰專利與過去專利之間是沒有甚麼差異的變形），系爭專利範圍與關聯前案也整理如下：

USPTO再審查判定，照這張表可推知：根據'626，'621為顯而易見式重複專利（ODP），不予專利；同理，根據'369，'626不予專利；根據'036，'369不予專利；以及根據'369，'742不予專利。其中，4件系爭專利中被挑戰的專利範圍都溯及'036，而此案並未獲得PTA（專利期限調整）。

--- PTAB ---

Cellect提起訴願，引用前例Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018)，認為ODP不應用於無效根據35 U.S. Code § 156（Extension of patent term）規定所取得延長的專利期限。

基於ODP，PTAB同樣認為系爭專利範圍不予專利。其中PTAB考量的議題是，對已經獲准取得PTA的專利的ODP分析（顯而易見式重複專利分析）應基於有PTA的過期日，或是沒有PTA的過期日？（Cellect主張以ODP判斷專利有效性時，應該基於加計PTA之前的專利過期日）

"The Board further considered whether or not an ODP analysis on a patent that has been granted PTA should be based on the expiration date of the patent with PTA or without PTA."

要克服ODP（兩件專利範圍不同，但差異為顯而易見），一般是提出終權聲明（TD），表示通過捨棄專利期限而與重複專利的另一專利一併到期。PTAB引用案例Merck & Co. v. Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co. (Fed. Cir. 2007)，在此案中，在專利取得延長期限（PTE）後，專利權人提出TD以克服ODP（顯而易見性重複專利），而CAFC判定，專利所獲得延長的專利期限（PTE）"不會"因為提出terminal disclaimer而被捨棄，PTAB進一步說明當專利自TD後的期限到期後開始有PTE，PTE計算也非從沒有TD前的到期日來算。

這樣有趣了，ODP與PTE之間有個微妙的關係。

接著，根據PTAB引用案例Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (Fed. Cir. 2018)，在此案CAFC的意見中，其中討論在沒有提出terminal disclaimer下的"ODP"與"PTE"關係，此案中，考量Merck案的意思，PTAB表示ODP適用"加計PTE之前"的專利期限。

"ODP should be considered from the expiration date of the patent before the addition of PTE."

（重要）綜合上述兩個意見，第一是TD不會影響PTE（ODP不能撤除有效獲得的PTE），第二是ODP的分析僅及於因PTE延長期限之前的專利期限。

然而，PTAB針對所述四件ex parte reexamination的判決是：否決Cellect的主張（i.e., ODP不能切斷PTA）。其中理由是，前例Merck案判決是基於"35 U.S. Code § 156"與"35 U.S. Code § 154"的差別，可分別參考：

- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/156

- https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35/154

再者，35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(2)(B)明白地規定任何TD都應適用經PTA取得的延長期限，也就是說PTA不能調整因為TD所拋棄的專利期限。

＂... any ODP analysis or determination, whether or not a terminal disclaimer is required, should be based on the adjusted expiration date of the patent.＂

如此，根據以上分析以及相關法院案例，PTAB判決：PTA調整專利期限之後的時間都應考量ODP與TD，據此，PTAB判定基於ODP引起的專利無效議題是再審程序的「新議題」，而Cellect的主張並無理由。最終維持USPTO作出4件系爭專利無效的決定。

Cellect上訴CAFC。

--- CAFC ---

法院表示（這是法院對PTAB上訴案的態度），除非PTAB有任意、反覆無常、濫用自由裁量權、缺乏支持的實質證據，或有不符合法律的情況（＂arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise not in accordance with law.＂），仍應參照PTAB意見。

就Cellect而言，主張PTE與PTA為相似情況，都應有相同的ODP適用，也就是主張應在加計任何延長專利期限（PTE, PTA）之前考量基於ODP的專利性議題。其中，Cellect仍引用Novartis案法院意見認為：PTE不能被ODP等法定原理所終止，又因為PTA與PTE同為法定授權的專利期限延長機制，亦主張ODP不能中斷PTA調整後的專利期限。

總而言之，上訴人的主張是，基於ODP（顯而易見性重複專利）的核駁意見不能及於PTA與PTE所加計的專利期限。

法院釐清相關議題，ODP議題是判斷發明是否是顯而易見，也就是判斷相同申請人或專利權人前後過期的專利發明之間的差異是否顯而易見？

如果差異是顯而易見，在沒有提出TD時，較晚過期的專利為無效。其中較晚過期專利是因為已經加計PTA或PTE。

然而，法院同意本案在再審階段時USPTO意見，在基於ODP判斷專利是否無效時，PTA與PTE應該有不同的處理方式，因為法規不同，情況也不同。

（重要）如此，CAFC結論是，PTA與PTE有不同適用，ODP核駁意見適用於PTE延長專利期限之前的專利，但是適用經PTA調整之後的專利期限。（對照以下段落內容）

"We conclude that, while the expiration date used for an ODP analysis where a patent has received PTE is the expiration date before the PTE has been added, the expiration date used or an ODP analysis where a patent has received PTA is the expiration date after the PTA has been added."

（重要）除了這句話，還帶了另一句話：ODP會同時影響到PTA與PTE的情況是，兩個方案法定授權的專利延長期限都是因為"行政延遲（所謂A/B/C delays）"，因此，如Cellect主張，將兩個不同法律規定的專利延長機制綁在一起並不合理。

"To say that PTA and PTE should be factored into an ODP analysis in the same manner merely because they both provide statutorily authorized time extensions that restore patent term due to various administrative delays, as Cellect argues, is an unjustified attempt to force disparate statutes into one."

接著敘述了ODP的法源與相關歷史。

（重要）在Merck，基於"35 U.S. Code § 156"與"35 U.S. Code § 154"的差別，CAFC判決PTE延長的期限不被TD排除。因此，如以下段落，法院對於PTE的解釋是，對於已經以TD限制專利過期日的專利而言，PTE所延長的期限不是從原本沒有TD時的期限來算，PTE是從被TD後重新計算的過期日起算。

"We therefore concluded that the calculation of a grant of PTE on a patent that has a terminal disclaimer “is from the expiration date resulting from the terminal disclaimer and not from the date the patent would have expired in the absence of the terminal disclaimer.”"

（重要）在Novartis，法院判決ODP並不能無效（invalidate）已經有效獲得的PTE。

綜合以上前例，前提是"專利要准"，即便有ODP（重複專利，針對相同申請人的申請案）問題，以TD解決後，ODP的影響就僅及於PTE加入期限之前的專利期限日。（翻得不好，可參考以下段落）

關於本案，事實上，Cellect並沒有針對ODP（顯而易見性重複專利）提出TD（終權聲明），事實上，Cellect是有機會在申請案申請過程與再審程序中提出TD，這應該也使得USPTO審查委員可以核駁重複專利的專利範圍，但是，都沒有，也就衍生本次PTE/PTA/ODP/TD議題。

結論：
就制定法律的美國國會而言，設計TD的意圖是終止不當延長的專利期限，並克服ODP，並也及於PTA所調整的專利期限。因此，如本次案例的系爭專利申請案，由於沒有提出TD，系爭專利申請案不可專利!!!

(在此忽略其他次要議題)

my two cents:

本篇判決知識含量很多，很多段落反覆著不同角度但有同一結論的論述，感覺法院在論述這類"非技術問題"的法律議題上都很情緒高漲的樣子，每個段落都要讀幾遍才會理解，第二遍讀時也會推翻之前的理解... 算有意義並有挑戰法律文件閱讀的內容。

最怕一堆文章中填入in addition ..., otherwise, ... but..., however, ... 這類轉折語，比較喜歡看到"we conclude...", therefore ..., we held that ...這種。

補充資料：

PTA：

A delay（35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(A)）: USPTO在14個月內應發出至少一個官方意見；官方4個月內回應申請人回覆（如OA答辯、訴願意見、針對PTAB或法院針對申請案的判決...）。

B delay（35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(B)）: 即便有官方行政程序造成的A-Delay，USPTO應於申請日後3年內獲准專利（除了一些情況...）。

C delay（35 U.S.C. § 154(b)(1)(C)）: 保證基於派生程序（申請人調查程序...）、保密令和上訴造成的延誤進行調整。

判決原文：http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1293.OPINION.8-28-2023_2181381.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/n3d27xllzomzy4a4ono60itjiwe8udkz）

參考資料：https://patentlyo.com/patent/2023/08/double-patenting-adjustment.html

Ron

審查歷程棄權原則並非天條，仍關乎審理層級與當下專利範圍的解釋 - CUPP COMPUTING AS v. TREND MICRO INC. (Fed. Cir. 2022)

本篇案例涉及「doctrine of prosecution disclaimer（審查歷程棄權原則）」，其實就如常說的審查歷史禁反言原則，只是這裡用disclaimer表示，卻有多層意思。常見有作者在特定平台發布言論或文章，平台會在文後補上一段「免責聲明（disclaimer）」，目的是要避免平台被該作者的言論責任波及。專利制度中的「disclaimer」發生在幾個程序中，如專利權有衝突時，可以通過disclaimer拋棄不當延長的專利權期限，或是專利權重複的問題，還有在專利審查過程形成的disclaimer是避免專利權重新取得曾經拋棄（disclaim）的專利範圍。

（其中案例＂MIT v. SHIRE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. (2016)＂判決：https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/15-1881.opinion.10-11-2016.1.pdf，所述"doctrine of prosecution disclaimer"源自案例：Omega Eng’g, Inc. v. Raytek Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2003)）

案件資訊：

上訴人/專利權人：CUPP COMPUTING AS

被上訴人：TREND MICRO INC.

系爭專利：US8,631,488 ('488), US9,106,683 ('683), US9,843,595 ('595)（IPR2019- 00764, IPR2019-00765, IPR2019-00767）

判決日：November 16, 2022

本案緣起上述三件系爭專利分別在三件IPR程序中被判不具非顯而易見性（引證案：US7,818,803 (“Gordon”)與US2010/0218012 (“Joseph”)），專利權被撤銷，專利權人CUPP上訴CAFC。

系爭專利為同一個專利家族中的專利，關於避免行動裝置受到惡意攻擊的技術，如在省電模式下提供安全服務，包括掃描儲存裝置中惡意程式以及更新安全修補程式的動作。

在專利範圍的解釋時，如'488案Claim 10，爭點之一是「[mobile] security system processor」，中文為安全系統處理器，顯然是一個自定義用語。在2019年3月，Trend Micro對系爭專利提起IPR異議程序，在其顯而易見的主張中，特別針對「[mobile] security system processor」的解釋，專利權人CUPP主張這個安全系統處理器是行動裝置以外"遠距/remote"的安全系統，而行動裝置內的是個代理程式"security agent"（'595案），而不同的是，先前技術Gordon, Joseph都是在行動裝置內的安全系統。

10. A mobile security system, comprising:

a mobile security system processor;

a connection mechanism for connecting to a data port of a mobile device and for communicating with the mobile device;

security instructions; and

a security engine configured to:

detect using the mobile security system processor a wake event;

provide a wake signal to the mobile device, the mobile device having a mobile device

processor different than the mobile security system processor, the wake signal being

in response to the wake event and adapted to wake at least a portion of the mobile device from a power management mode; and

after providing the wake signal to the mobile device, executing the security instructions

using the mobile security system processor to manage security services configured

to protect the mobile device.

審理的PTAB判定專利範圍並未界定所述安全系統處理是為遠端的，即便如'595提到"security agent"，在先前技術的教示下，仍是顯而易見的。系爭專利經IPR程序判定不具專利性，案件上訴至CAFC，主要議題涉及申請專利範圍的解釋以及針對'595案的非顯而易知性。

這時，CAFC依循2021年最高法院在案件"United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021)"中的意旨（https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-1434_ancf.pdf，此案中，專利權人對於PTAB作出最終決定的APJ們提出異議，認為他們可以作出不可挑戰的意見的權利，但其任命基礎是錯的...），讓CUPP有機會針對IPR的最終決定（final written decision）要求重審，但此請求被PTAB的acting director否決，CUPP更改訴狀後繼續上訴CAFC。

CAFC階段：

針對顯而易見性（35  U.S.C.  § 103(a)）判斷，先解釋專利範圍（Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed.  Cir.  2005)），本案中幾個重要的用語，如「security  system  processor」，專利權人CUPP主張這是分離於行動裝置之外的處理器，也就是行動裝置內具有處理器，但與此外部的「security  system  processor」不同。

相對地，PTAB的解釋是，即便「security  system  processor」不同於行動裝置內的「mobile device processor」，但這也不代表是兩個分開的處理器。

其中說是"different"，但法院認為這是不相同(dissimilar)，或是部分或全部不像(partly or totally unalike)，認為專利權人CUPP沒有理由用更限定的方式解釋。基於說明書、請求項與審查歷史，法院解釋這兩個處理器可以不同，但卻是內嵌於單一裝置中。

專利權人CUPP的回應是，有部分專利範圍的描述是「security  system  processor」會傳送訊號到行動裝置，並提到安全系統通過「資料通訊埠」與行動裝置通訊，並設有通訊介面，因此主張行動裝置是在與外部裝置通訊。

法院反駁，認為即便「security  system  processor」有上述行為，但如傳送電子郵件來看，可以傳送給寄件者本人，裝置內不同元件也可相互通訊與傳送訊號，甚至在特定家族專利有提到「security  system  processor」可以內部或外部通訊埠（communication interface）進行通訊。

再看系爭專利'683審查歷史，案件經審查不具非顯而易見性，因為先前技術（Priestley, "Trusted  Platform  Module"(TPM)，可以是軟體或硬體）如同系爭專利的「security  system  processor」，且也不同於行動裝置原本的處理器，表示先前技術Priestley已經揭示兩個"分離"的處理器。對此，CUPP答辯內容反映出"prosecution disclaimer"基本原則，根據CUPP的答辯，認為先前技術Priestley中的TPM是連接在主機板的晶片，仍是行動裝置的一部分，而不是分離的兩個處理器，不同於系爭專利不同（"different from"）的兩個處理器。（編按，這句話也寫在專利範圍中"having a mobile device processor different than the mobile security system processor"。）

基於這個答辯理由，系爭專利'683獲准。

看來，基於審查歷史棄權原則，CUPP似乎毫無疑慮地否認（disavowal）了某個專利範圍，CUPP的主張是系爭專利中行動裝置採用分開的兩個處理器 - 「security  system  processor」與「mobile device processor」。

（"“The  doctrine  of  prosecution  disclaimer  precludes  patentees from recapturing through claim interpretation specific meanings disclaimed during prosecution.”Mass. Inst. of Tech. v. Shire Pharms., Inc. (Fed. Cir.  2016)"）

但是，法院仍有不同意見，根據前例"Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2016)"，專利權人所宣稱的否認（disavowal）是不夠明確的，或是甚至可以被修改為多種合理的解釋上，因此否決了上述審查歷史棄權的部分。

（"Thus, where “the alleged disavowal is ambiguous, or even amenable to multiple reasonable interpretations, we have declined to find prosecution disclaimer.” Avid Tech., Inc. v. Harmonic, Inc., 812 F.3d 1040, 1045 (Fed. Cir. 2016)"）

法院的說明是，同意IPR階段PTAB的判決，CUPP的聲明並沒有明確放棄可以在行動裝置中嵌入爭議的「security  system  processor」。依照CUPP的答辯意見，先前技術的TPM可能是行動裝置主機板的一部分，但先前技術中並未揭露其TPM不同於（different than）行動裝置的處理器，CUPP主張的是Priestley並未教示有不同的處理器，理由是TPM不是分別的處理器。在此解釋下，如果TPM是在主機板上的獨立晶片，TPM卻是需要主機板上原本的處理器，並未擁有自己的處理器，而這個合理的解釋"打敗了"CUPP自己的棄權宣告（"reasonable interpretation defeats CUPP's assertion of prosecutorial disclaimer"）。

CUPP的回應是，在USPTO的disclaimer已經拋棄了「security system processor」在行動裝置主機板上的範圍，並引用前例Aylus Networks, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)，認為在IPR階段的disclaimer已經有效限縮專利範圍，但PTAB卻忽略了這個disclaimer。（一般的認知是，IPR階段的PTAB所述prosecution disclaimer（審查歷史棄權聲明）應該是從USPTO、PTAB到法院都影響專利範圍的解釋。）

- 專利權人在IPR的回應影響專利範圍解釋 - Aylus Networks v. Apple (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/06/ipr-aylus-networks-v-apple-fed-cir-2017.html）

但法院認為是，Aylus案（在IPR階段的disclaimer僅可以影響地院侵權審理時解釋專利範圍）沒有幫到CUPP，也就是說，法院同意PTAB審理IPR案件時，不受到專利權人在審查歷史中的disclaimer限制。（編按，這可能與行政與司法體系與層級有關。）

CAFC定調，在USPTO的disclaimer並不能約束IPR程序（如同民事法院程序），如同在地院的disclaimer僅能約束在地院的後續審理程序一般。

基於上述內部證據合理地推導專利範圍，系爭專利並未排除內部通訊埠連線的方式，因此，所有證據顯示，「security  system  processor」與另一行動裝置處理器並非一定是分開的兩個電路元件。

解釋完專利範圍，再基於先前技術（證據）揭示內容，判定系爭專利不具非顯而易見性，專利無效。

判決文：http://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/20-2262.OPINION.11-16-2022_2034079.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/7t7sikkhc4drrji6j4vxq801m3i1mhs6）

Ron

專利適格性的答辯歷史筆記 - 評分一個帳戶

先列舉一個軟體專利案請求項範例，範例：US9699175，關於「一個帳戶的評價」，這個專利範圍是通過期末拋棄（terminal disclaimer）直接獲准，對應的另一家族專利US9455974（此案應該是策略性地放棄），'974審查歷史中"不意外地"曾面對35U.S.C.101的阻礙，答辯歷史可以看出一些這些大公司如何面對101、103等審查意見，案件經過幾次修正形成（如下），算很典型的軟體發明專利，有趣的是，這可以看出「Google怎麼評分一個帳戶」，這是從安全性考量來評分，相關因素有：使用者年紀、使用頻率、聯絡資訊、名聲、儲存數據量、帳戶存取其他帳戶的能力、帳戶存取或使用商業工具的能力。

US9455974：

第一次OA的101核駁：請求項發明關於使用者帳戶的資料預算、儲存與操作，屬於抽象概念，其中技術為一般目的電腦實現，沒有實質超越法定不予專利的標的。

第一次修正（claim 16）：

第二次OA的101核駁：前次修正併入的技術特徵，單獨或整體來看，並未建立有意義的技術限制使之超越法定不予專利理由。

第二次修正（Claim 16）：

這次的答辯意見（針對101），Google表示修正專利範圍Claim 16，併入的特徵描述藉由判斷安全性相關行為而保護儲存帳戶數據避免未授權存取的系統，並列舉出所述安全性相關行為的幾個項目。據此，再引用註明案例DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com, LP (Fed. Cir. 2014)，主張如法院對此前案的判定中指出：如果並非單純描述通過網路驅使商業活動的效能，若提供的電腦技術可以克服電腦網路領域中的問題，為符合專利適格性的可專利的發明。

可以參考：商業方法可專利性專利適格性？電腦軟體專利的生機 - DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (Fed. 2014)案例討論（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/12/ddr-holdings-v-hotelscom-fed-2014.html）(在此更正較佳為“專利適格性”，指是否為可被專利保護的標的，clarified, updated on Aug. 3, 2023)

本案經提出RCE後，USPTO發出核准通知，看來以上修正與答辯有效地證明專利為改良電腦技術而具有專利適格性。而審委在核准通知並未明確回應以上101的答辯意見，而是判定專利克服先前技術的核駁理由而獲准。

Google在專利獲准後還提交一次簡單語句修正，最終領證。

以下列舉Claim 1（原Claim 16）專利範圍，描述一個系統，可通過判斷安全性相關行為保護帳戶數據免於未授權存取，系統包括「一或多個處理器」、「一些資料儲存裝置」以及「一或多個非暫態電腦可讀取儲存媒體」，其中儲存電腦程式指令，經處理器執行後，執行了以下步驟...其中描述了強化帳號的強度的相關措施。

1. A system for protecting stored account data from unauthorized access by determining a security-related action to implement in an account, comprising:

one or more processors,

a plurality of data storage facilities that maintain data elements corresponding to an account for a user, wherein the data elements are distributed across two or more data storage facilities and comprise two or more of the following data types: actual user data maintained at a first data storage facility, metadata descriptive of the actual user data maintained at a second data storage facility, user profile data maintained at a third data storage facility, and measured usage parameters maintained at a fourth data storage facility; and

one or more non-transitory, computer-readable storage media containing programming instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors cause the processors to:

automatically identify a plurality of signals in the data elements, wherein each of the plurality of signals comprises one or more characteristics of the account, selected from: an age of the account, a frequency of use of the account, contact information associated with the account, a reputation of the account, an amount of data stored or associated with the account, an ability of the account to access other accounts, an ability of the account to access or use financial instruments, or a type of data in the account,

for each of the signals, determine a signal value,

assign a plurality of weights to at least a subset of the signal values to yield a set of weighted signal values,

use the set of weighted signal values to assign an account value to the account,

use the account value to select a security-related action that corresponds to the account value, wherein the security-related action comprises one or more of the following:

enabling a stronger password or authentication sequence for the account,

enabling one or more security precautions relating to account recovery mechanisms,

enabling per-transaction authentication for the account,

adjusting thresholds for detecting fraudulent attempts to access the account,

triggering alerts for manual review of an account login, or

adjusting thresholds for requiring per-transaction authentication, and

cause an account system that comprises the plurality of data storage facilities to automatically implement the selected security-related action.

US9699175：

此案為上述'974的家族專利，面對重複專利的阻礙，之後經Terminal Disclaimer後獲准專利。

此案Claim 1描述保護帳戶數據的方法，典型的軟體專利，通過處理器執行程式指令後執行以下步驟：接收使用者帳戶關聯的數據，自動識別數據特徵，參考了帳戶的特徵：年紀、使用頻率、聯絡資訊、存取其他帳戶的另、名聲、數據量、存取或使用商業工具的能力與數據的形式等，如此來評價相關數據（評分），接著就是加強安全性的措施。

1. A method of protecting stored account data from unauthorized access by determining a security-related action to implement in an account, comprising:

by a processor, implementing programming instructions that are configured to cause the processor to:

receive, from at least two different data storage facilities, a plurality of data elements corresponding to an account for a user, wherein the data elements comprise two or more of the following data types: actual user data, metadata descriptive of the actual user data, user profile data, or measured usage parameters;

automatically identify a plurality of signals in the data elements, wherein the signals comprise one or more of the following characteristics of the account: an age of the account, a frequency of use of the account, contact information associated with the account, a reputation of the account, an amount of data stored or associated with the account, an ability of the account to access other accounts, an ability of the account to access or use financial instruments, or a type of data in the account;

for each of the signals, determine a signal value;

assign a plurality of weights to at least a subset of the signal values to yield a set of weighted signal values;

use the set of weighted signal values to assign an account value to the account;

use the account value to select a security-related action that corresponds to the account value, wherein the security-related action comprises one or more of the following:

enabling a stronger password or authentication sequence for the account,

enabling one or more security precautions relating to account recovery mechanisms,

enabling per-transaction authentication for the account,

adjusting thresholds for detecting fraudulent attempts to access the account,

triggering alerts for manual review of an account login, or

adjusting thresholds for requiring per-transaction authentication, and

instruct the plurality of data storage facilities from which the data elements were received to automatically implement the selected security-related action.

這裡補充一些與同事討論「請求項撰寫」的一些問題。

MPEP 608.01教我們如何撰寫專利範圍，其中608.01(m)則是提到請求項的格式（form of claims），主要是提醒申請人專利範圍應獨立於專利說明書其他的部份，如何開始、結束、分行、縮排，也說明這些格式規定是因為「專利撰寫實務」，不過都是目前撰寫專利請求項時依循的準則。

- 用I/We claim或The invention claimed is開始（不會排除其他類似的用語）。

- 專利元件/步驟分行、縮排，主要是易讀的目的。

- 請求項中可以用小括號標註元件編號（不會影響專利範圍的解讀）。

- 一句話原則，每個請求項就一個句號（period）。

- 依照請求項標的分組，不混淆產品、流程的專利範圍。

參考：https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html#d0e45061

608.01(m) Form of Claims

The claim or claims must commence on a separate physical sheet or electronic page and should appear after the detailed description of the invention. Any sheet including a claim or portion of a claim may not contain any other parts of the application or other material. While there is no set statutory form for claims, the present Office practice is to insist that each claim must be the object of a sentence starting with "I (or we) claim," "The invention claimed is" (or the equivalent). If, at the time of allowance, the quoted terminology is not present, it is inserted by the Office of Data Management. Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v.Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995). Where a claim sets forth a plurality of elements or steps, each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i).

There may be plural indentations to further segregate subcombinations or related steps. In general, the printed patent copies will follow the format used but printing difficulties or expense may prevent the duplication of unduly complex claim formats.

Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description and the drawings may be used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims. The reference characters, however, should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. Generally, the presence or absence of such reference characters does not affect the scope of a claim.

Many of the difficulties encountered in the prosecution of patent applications after final rejection may be alleviated if each applicant includes, at the time of filing or no later than the first reply, claims varying from the broadest to which he or she believes he or she is entitled to the most detailed that he or she is willing to accept.

Claims should preferably be arranged in order of scope so that the first claim presented is the least restrictive. All dependent claims should be grouped together with the claim or claims to which they refer to the extent practicable. Where separate species are claimed, the claims of like species should be grouped together where possible. Similarly, product and process claims should be separately grouped. Such arrangements are for the purpose of facilitating classification and examination.

When two claims in an application comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(d) but are duplicates, or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other claim under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. Note however, that court decisions have confirmed applicant’s right to restate (i.e., by plural claiming) the invention in a reasonable number of ways. Indeed, a mere difference in scope between claims has been held to be enough. Form paragraphs 7.05.05 and 7.05.06 may be used where duplicate claims are present in an application.

See MPEP § 608.01(n), subsection II, for rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) of dependent claims that do not specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. See MPEP § 804 for double patenting rejections of claims in different applications that are not patentable over each other.

The form of claim required in 37 CFR 1.75(e) is particularly adapted for the description of improvement-type inventions. It is to be considered a combination claim. The preamble of this form of claim is considered to positively and clearly include all the elements or steps recited therein as a part of the claimed combination.

The following form paragraphs may be used to object to the form of the claims.

一些會被駁回的寫法：

- 沒有用分開的頁面撰寫請求項。

- 不合格式規定情況：沒有用小括號標示編號；請求項撰寫過於擁擠、不具可讀性（有建議行距）。

- 專利請求項中有實質相同的範圍（僅用語wording差別）。

¶ 6.18.01 Claims: Placement

The claims in this application do not commence on a separate sheet or electronic page in accordance with 37 CFR 1.52(b)(3) and 1.75(h). Appropriate correction is required in response to this action.

¶ 7.29.01 Claims Objected to, Minor Informalities

Claim[1] objected to because of the following informalities: [2]. Appropriate correction is required.

Reference characters corresponding to elements recited in the detailed description of the drawings and used in conjunction with the recitation of the same element or group of elements in the claims should be enclosed within parentheses so as to avoid confusion with other numbers or characters which may appear in the claims. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

¶ 7.29.03 Claims Objected to, Spacing of Lines

The claims are objected to because the lines are crowded too closely together, making reading difficult. Substitute claims with lines one and one-half or double spaced on good quality paper are required. See 37 CFR 1.52(b).

¶ 7.05.05 Duplicate Claims, Warning

Applicant is advised that should claim [1] be found allowable, claim [2] will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

¶ 7.05.06 Duplicate Claims, Objection

Claim [1] objected under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claim [2]. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).

參考資料：

https://patents.stackexchange.com/questions/12104/single-sentence-claim-and-use-of-semicolon-linker-and-in-claims

Ron

失去權利時間的終權聲明 - 37 CFR 1.137(d)

37 CFR 1.137復權規定筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/05/37-cfr-1137.html）
拋棄專利（申請案）之恢復（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/03/blog-post.html）

37 CFR 1.137規定如何將「拋棄的申請案」、「被終結的程序」或是「限制的再審程序」復權（revival），然而，既然案件曾經失去權利，那這段時間的權利怎麼算？

在37 CFR 1.137(d)規定中，任何「復權請願（petition to revive）」應附帶「終權聲明（terminal disclaimer）」以及費用，聲明將權利中止的這段時間的權利貢獻給公眾，其中特別的是，這是針對設計專利申請案（design），以及1995年6月8日以前申請的發明或植物專利申請案。

如此可知，如果在1995年6月8日後的發明與植物專利申請案就不受到此規定的限制，也如37 CFR 1.137(d)(3)規定，以上規定的「terminal disclaimer」就不適用在1995年6月8日當日或之後「要提出復權請願」的發明或植物專利申請案，也就是說，專利家族中有某件專利提出復權請願時，不用附帶「終權聲明」，也就不會影響此專利的其他家族專利。

所述「終權聲明（terminal disclaimer）」，根據37 CFR 1.321，專利權人可針對一件專利中的單一或全部專利範圍提出終權聲明，將未屆期專利期限貢獻給公眾。實務上，常見於同一申請人/發明人下的專利家族中專利權有衝突時，如專利之間存在非法定重複專利（Non-Statutory Double Patenting）（也就是兩件或多件專利之間存在的差異為顯而易見）的問題時，可以終權聲明克服。

MPEP 711 Abandonment of Patent Application
(https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s711.html)
其中界定出各種專利（申請案）拋棄的樣態，如未於期限內回應官方意見、申請人主動聲明放棄，以及各中細節。

這裡解釋了，為何1995年6月8日當日或之後的發明與植物申請案在復權請願中不用提出終權聲明？

理由是：當專利（申請案）復權後（復權請願應於申請人收到，「專利期限調整（patent term adjustment）」程序就會自動消除這部份時間。

"3. Utility and Plant Applications Filed on or After May 29, 2000
In utility and plant applications filed on or after May 29, 2000, a terminal disclaimer should not be required as a condition of granting an untimely petition to withdraw the holding of abandonment. This is because any patent term adjustment is automatically reduced under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.704(c)(4) in applications subject to the patent term adjustment provisions of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA) if a petition to withdraw a holding of abandonment is not filed within two months from the mailing date of the notice of abandonment, and if applicant does not receive the notice of abandonment, any patent term adjustment is reduced under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.704(a) by a period equal to the period of time during which the applicant "failed to engage in reasonable efforts to conclude prosecution" (processing or examination) of the application."

[法條]
37 CFR 1.137 Revival of abandoned application, or terminated or limited reexamination prosecution.  
(https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_137.html) 

• (a) Revival on the basis of unintentional delay. If the delay in reply by applicant or patent owner was unintentional, a petition may be filed pursuant to this section to revive an abandoned application or a reexamination prosecution terminated under § 1.550(d) or § 1.957(b) or limited under § 1.957(c).
• (b) Petition requirements. A grantable petition pursuant to this section must be accompanied by:
  • (1) The reply required to the outstanding Office action or notice, unless previously filed;
  • (2) The petition fee as set forth in § 1.17(m);
  • (3) Any terminal disclaimer (and fee as set forth in § 1.20(d) ) required pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section; and
  • (4) A statement that the entire delay in filing the required reply from the due date for the reply until the filing of a grantable petition pursuant to this section was unintentional. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional.
• (c) Reply. In an application abandoned under § 1.57(a), the reply must include a copy of the specification and any drawings of the previously filed application. In an application or patent abandoned for failure to pay the issue fee or any portion thereof, the required reply must include payment of the issue fee or any outstanding balance. In an application abandoned for failure to pay the publication fee, the required reply must include payment of the publication fee. In a nonprovisional application abandoned for failure to prosecute, the required reply may be met by the filing of a continuing application. In a nonprovisional utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, abandoned after the close of prosecution as defined in § 1.114(b), the required reply may also be met by the filing of a request for continued examination in compliance with § 1.114.
• (d) Terminal disclaimer.
  • (1) Any petition to revive pursuant to this section in a design application must be accompanied by a terminal disclaimer and fee as set forth in § 1.321 dedicating to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the period of abandonment of the application. Any petition to revive pursuant to this section in either a utility or plant application filed before June 8, 1995, must be accompanied by a terminal disclaimer and fee as set forth in § 1.321 dedicating to the public a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the lesser of:
    • (i) The period of abandonment of the application; or
    • (ii) The period extending beyond twenty years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States or, if the application contains a specific reference to an earlier filed application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) from the date on which the earliest such application was filed.
  • (2) Any terminal disclaimer pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section must also apply to any patent granted on a continuing utility or plant application filed before June 8, 1995, or a continuing design application, that contains a specific reference under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) to the application for which revival is sought.
  • (3) The provisions of paragraph (d)(1) of this section do not apply to applications for which revival is sought solely for purposes of copendency with a utility or plant application filed on or after June 8, 1995, to reissue applications, or to reexamination proceedings.
• (e) Request for reconsideration. Any request for reconsideration or review of a decision refusing to revive an abandoned application, or a terminated or limited reexamination prosecution, upon petition filed pursuant to this section, to be considered timely, must be filed within two months of the decision refusing to revive or within such time as set in the decision. Unless a decision indicates otherwise, this time period may be extended under:
  • (1) The provisions of § 1.136 for an abandoned application;
  • (2) The provisions of § 1.550(c) for a terminated ex parte reexamination prosecution, where the ex parte reexamination was filed under § 1.510; or
  • (3) The provisions of § 1.956 for a terminated inter partes reexamination prosecution or an inter partes reexamination limited as to further prosecution, where the inter partes reexamination was filed under § 1.913.
• (f) Abandonment for failure to notify the Office of a foreign filing. A nonprovisional application abandoned pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 122(b)(2)(B)(iii) for failure to timely notify the Office of the filing of an application in a foreign country or under a multinational treaty that requires publication of applications eighteen months after filing, may be revived pursuant to this section. The reply requirement of paragraph (c) of this section is met by the notification of such filing in a foreign country or under a multinational treaty, but the filing of a petition under this section will not operate to stay any period for reply that may be running against the application.
• (g) Provisional applications. A provisional application, abandoned for failure to timely respond to an Office requirement, may be revived pursuant to this section. Subject to the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 119(e)(3) and § 1.7(b), a provisional application will not be regarded as pending after twelve months from its filing date under any circumstances.

37 CFR 1.321 Statutory disclaimers, including terminal disclaimers.
(https://www.bitlaw.com/source/37cfr/1_321.html)

[Editor Note: Para. (b) below is applicable only to patent applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) or 363 on or after September 16, 2012*]

• (a) A patentee owning the whole or any sectional interest in a patent may disclaim any complete claim or claims in a patent. In like manner any patentee may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of the patent granted. Such disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns. A notice of the disclaimer is published in the Official Gazette and attached to the printed copies of the specification. The disclaimer, to be recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office, must:
  • (1) Be signed by the patentee, or an attorney or agent of record;
  • (2) Identify the patent and complete claim or claims, or term being disclaimed. A disclaimer which is not a disclaimer of a complete claim or claims, or term will be refused recordation;
  • (3) State the present extent of patentee’s ownership interest in the patent; and
  • (4) Be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.20(d).
• (b) An applicant may disclaim or dedicate to the public the entire term, or any terminal part of the term, of a patent to be granted. Such terminal disclaimer is binding upon the grantee and its successors or assigns. The terminal disclaimer, to be recorded in the Patent and Trademark Office, must:
  • (1) Be signed by the applicant or an attorney or agent of record;
  • (2) Specify the portion of the term of the patent being disclaimed;
  • (3) State the present extent of applicant’s ownership interest in the patent to be granted; and
  • (4) Be accompanied by the fee set forth in § 1.20(d).
• (c) A terminal disclaimer, when filed to obviate judicially created double patenting in a patent application or in a reexamination proceeding except as provided for in paragraph (d) of this section, must:
  • (1) Comply with the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of this section;
  • (2) Be signed in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section if filed in a patent application or in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section if filed in a reexamination proceeding; and
  • (3) Include a provision that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent is commonly owned with the application or patent which formed the basis for the judicially created double patenting.
• (d) A terminal disclaimer, when filed in a patent application or in a reexamination proceeding to obviate double patenting based upon a patent or application that is not commonly owned but was disqualified as prior art as set forth in either § 1.104(c)(4)(ii) or (c)(5)(ii) as the result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement, must:
  • (1) Comply with the provisions of paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4) of this section;
  • (2) Be signed in accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section if filed in a patent application or be signed in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section if filed in a reexamination proceeding; and
  • (3) Include a provision waiving the right to separately enforce any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding and the patent or any patent granted on the application which formed the basis for the double patenting, and that any patent granted on that application or any patent subject to the reexamination proceeding shall be enforceable only for and during such period that said patent and the patent, or any patent granted on the application, which formed the basis for the double patenting are not separately enforced.

Ron