圖式中的線怎麼畫 - 筆記

37 CFR § 1.84 - Standards for drawings. (可參考：https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/37/1.84)

（這只是我個人的筆記，表示有看過，平常沒太多問題，遇到圖中標示符號的objections才會看看規定！）

（感謝同事分享）

(p) Numbers, letters, and reference characters.

(1) Reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted.

（圖中標號、符號應以清晰為原則表示，標示方向應以看圖的角度一致）

(2) The English alphabet must be used for letters, except where another alphabet is customarily used, such as the Greek alphabet to indicate angles, wavelengths, and mathematical formulas.

（應以英文字母表示元件符號，但可以希臘字表示角度、波長、數學方程式等慣用方式）

(3) Numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. ( 1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct.

（圖中編號、符號高度應符合規定，不能交錯，元件符號不能躲在陰影中，有必要的話應以底線並挖空白標在當中）

(4) The same part of an invention appearing in more than one view of the drawing must always be designated by the same reference character, and the same reference character must never be used to designate different parts.

（同一元件就用相同的元件符號，不同元件不能用相同元件符號）

(5) Reference characters not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings. Reference characters mentioned in the description must appear in the drawings.

（說明書沒講的元件符號，就不要畫在圖中，也就是，如果不重要，元件可以出現，但就不要標號）

(q) Lead lines. Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. See paragraph (l) of this section.

（圖中元件符號以標線（lead line，可以是直線或曲線，盡量短）指出要描述的元件；標線應緊鄰元件符號，再延伸至要標示的元件；標線不能彼此交錯；每個元件符號應該都要有標線，除了要標示一個表面或剖面...(或標示一個大範圍、標示整張圖等，這我加的)，可以在元件符號加上底線標示；圖中標線應以相同方式標示。）

範例（高爾夫練習場）：

其他：

Ron

習知圖式形成AAPA - 訴願案(10/948,402)討論

在查圖式中標記「Prior Art」的規定時，發現圖式標示"prior art"也是有點學問的，根據MPEP608.02(g)規定，一開始就說以圖式表示先前技術是沒有需要的，還要求刪除!!! 然而，如果需要通過先前技術圖式理解本發明，則可保留並標記為"Prior Art"。

608.02(g)    Illustration of Prior Art

Figures showing the prior art are usually unnecessary and should be canceled. Ex parte Elliott, 1904 C.D. 103, 109 OG 1337 (Comm’r Pat. 1904). However, where needed to understand applicant’s invention, they may be retained if designated by a legend such as "Prior Art."

而我曾經收到以下審查意見，原始圖式針對習知技術的圖式標記為"Related Art"，審查委員認為應該標示"Prior Art"，姑且不論是否是審查委員的個人偏好，或是法律這樣規定不得用其他用語取代，經查網路上的各種資訊，其實很少針對此議題的案例。

然仍在All Things Pros已經沒有更新的部落格中找到本次想要分享的案例，其中專利申請人針對圖式"沒有"標示"prior art"答辯認為其並未建立申請人承認先前技術（AAPA），因為"圖式涵蓋發明的部分"，但USPTO審查意見與訴願決定都判定此案仍因AAPA而不具新穎性。

專利申請號：10/948,402

系爭申請案爭議的圖式：

03/18/2008 最終駁回（駁回圖式理由：本案圖1的描述在段落0009，其中都是在描述相關技術）

在102議題中，圖1的描述被視為是本案的AAPA（申請人承認的先前技術）

申請人在說明書也承認本案與習知僅為細微差異，使得在最終審查意見中被判定本案不具新穎性。

06/17/2008 訴願請求

08/18/2008 提交訴願理由

01/26/2009 受理訴願

12/11/2009 訴願決定 - 訴願駁回，訴願委員會確認審查意見：基於AAPA發明不具新穎性。

訴願號碼：2009-006771

申請日：10/948,402

決定日：Dec. 10, 2009

my two cents:

本案例因為專利說明書中明確地在習知技術的部分描述Figure 1，卻又承認與本發明差異不大，使得審查時認為Figure 1建立了AAPA，也據此駁回申請案。可知，說明書描述先前技術需要考量是否建立了AAPA。

本案說明書的一些AAPA證據：

資料來源：All Things Pros https://allthingspros.blogspot.com/2012/09/petition-decision-drawings-prior-art.html

Ron

「圖式編號」的規定 - 37 CFR 1.84

美國專利細則規範很多細節，如圖中編號Fig. 1, ...順序、字母與大小都有規定，甚至僅使用單張圖式時... 還不能使用"Fig."。

37 CFR 1.84: STANDARDS FOR DRAWINGS

...

(u) Numbering of views.（視圖編號）

(1) The different views must be numbered in consecutive Arabic numerals（用數字順序編號）, starting with 1, independent of the numbering of the sheets and, if possible, in the order in which they appear on the drawing sheet(s). Partial views intended to form one complete view, on one or several sheets（部分視圖用完整一或多張圖表示）, must be identified by the same number followed by a capital letter（部分視圖用相同編號加上＂大寫字母＂編號）. View numbers must be preceded by the abbreviation "FIG."（用縮寫"FIG."表示） Where only a single view is used in an application to illustrate the claimed invention, it must not be numbered （單獨一張圖就不用編號了）and the abbreviation "FIG." must not appear.（單張視圖的申請案不能使用"FIG."縮寫）

(2) Numbers and letters identifying the views must be simple and clear and must not be used in association with brackets, circles, or inverted commas. （視圖編號與字母不要配合使用特殊符號）The view numbers must be larger than the numbers used for reference characters.（視圖編號要大於圖中元件符號）

...

這個規定應該是常識，卻常被我們忽略，或是沒有想過（我自己幾乎沒有印象寫過僅使用一張圖的案子，化學案則應該比較常見一張圖或是沒有圖式的情況！），當只有一張圖，就沒有編號的必要，也就沒有Fig. 1, Fig. 2的需要，連Fig. 1也沒有必要，就直接畫出圖來，說明書用"the figure"。

同事分享有OA提出僅單張圖式卻使用"Fig. 1"的objections。

範例：

US9655833僅一張圖，圖式介紹中沒有使用"Fig. 1"，說明書使用"the FIGURE"。

反例：

US9167814使用一張圖，圖式簡說使用「Fig. 1」，但說明書使用「the FIGURE」。

US5981622僅一張圖，說明書中圖式簡說使用「Fig. 1」，說明書描述都有「Fig. 1」與「the FIGURE」。

感謝同事"佳濠"分享這個"冷知識"。

Ron

美國發明專利申請案彩圖範例

有人問，美國發明專利申請案（utility application）是否可送彩色圖？

答案是：可以。

要件是，提交發明申請案時，附上彩圖，同時提交請願書（petition），說明用彩圖的必要性，提交的彩圖品質要夠、可重製（reproducible），並且要求在最後黑白公報中可以顯示其中細節，說明書圖式簡單說明要寫上這段話：”The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.”

還要有額外的費用。

針對每張彩圖，若以電子檔送件，就一份，若以紙本送件，需要三份。

相關規定在CFR

1.84 Standards for drawings.

(a) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications.

(1) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings; or

(2) Color. Color drawings are permitted in design applications. Where a design application contains color drawings, the application must include the number of sets of color drawings required by paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section and the specification must contain the reference required by paragraph (a)(2)(iii) of this section. On rare occasions, color drawings may be necessary as the only practical medium by which to disclose the subject matter sought to be patented in a utility patent application. The color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. Color drawings are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13). The Office will accept color drawings in utility patent applications only after granting a petition filed under this paragraph explaining why the color drawings are necessary. Any such petition must include the following:

(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h) ;

(ii) One (1) set of color drawings if submitted via the Office electronic filing system or three (3) sets of color drawings if not submitted via the Office electronic filing system; and

(iii) An amendment to the specification to insert (unless the specification contains or has been previously amended to contain) the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings:

The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.

這裡找到一件範例：US9679539

brief description of the drawings:

petition:

說明彩圖的必要性：

現在公報的黑白圖：

另一範例：US9748305

brief description of the drawings:

petition:

本來這是彩圖：

Ron

發明專利中的彩色圖式

一般來說，專利示意圖用黑白圖式，但也可能在某些情況下需要提出具有色彩的圖面來說明發明內容，例如一些需要表示材料特色的影像、設計專利與植物專利（美國）等，說明書都會表示其中有彩色圖案。對發明、設計專利而言，其中若需要彩色圖式，除了要繳交額外費用外，還有提出petition說明使用彩色圖的必要性。

舉例來說：
植物PP31980



植物PP31,978



設計D891,705


設計D891,469


發明US8335998


petition and petition decision




發明US9103714




[以下節錄自USPTO給申請人的注意事項「General information concerning patents」（https://www.uspto.gov/patents-getting-started/general-information-concerning-patents），但其實這些是規定在37CFR1.84等篇章的內容]

關於圖式的標準，圖式有黑白與彩色圖，常用的是黑白圖，如果提出彩色圖，除了要繳交額外費用外，還要提出「petition from Applicant to accept Color Drawings or Color Photographs」，且彩色圖仍要求要有足夠的品質以至於重製為黑白時仍可看出其細節。



且應在（發明專利）說明書中的「brief description of drawings」中寫下「"the patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color.  Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee."」。如果申請時沒寫，即便提出petition也會被駁回，因此應在提出petition時隨附主動修正（preliminary amendments）的說明書。

Standards for Drawings

(1) Drawings. There are two acceptable categories for presenting drawings in utility and design patent applications:

(a) Black ink. Black and white drawings are normally required. India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings, or

(b) Color. On rare occasions, color drawings may be necessary as the only practical medium by which to disclose the subject matter sought to be patented in a utility or design patent application or the subject matter of a statutory invention registration. The color drawings must be of sufficient quality such that all details in the drawings are reproducible in black and white in the printed patent. Color drawings are not permitted in international applications (see PCT Rule 11.13), or in an application, or copy thereof, submitted under the Office electronic filing system.

The Office will accept color drawings in utility or design patent applications and statutory invention registrations only after granting a petition filed under this paragraph explaining why the color drawings are necessary. Any such petition must include the following:

(i) The fee set forth in § 1.17(h);

(ii) Three sets of color drawings; and

(iii) An amendment to the specification to insert (unless the specification contains or has been previously amended to contain) the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings:

The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.

(2) Photographs

(a) Black and white. Photographs, including photocopies of photographs, are not ordinarily permitted in utility and design patent applications. The Office will accept photographs in utility and design patent applications, however, if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. For example, photographs or photomicrographs of electrophoresis gels, blots (e.g., immuno-logical, western, southern, and northern), autoradiographs, cell cultures (stained and unstained), histological tissue cross sections (stained and unstained), animals, plants, in vivo imaging, thin-layer chromatography plates, crystalline structures, and, in a design patent application, ornamental effects, are acceptable. If the subject matter of the application admits of illustration by a drawing, the examiner may require a drawing in place of the photograph. The photographs must be of sufficient quality so that all details in the photographs are reproducible in the printed patent.

(b) Color photographs. Color photographs will be accepted in utility and design patent applications if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(1) of this section.

其他參考報導：
- 美國「彩色或照片」的設計專利筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2020/01/blog-post_10.html）
- 美國專利圖式規定 - MPEP 1825（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/05/mpep-1825.html）
- 從一個設計案核駁理由學習「線條與顏色」（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2013/09/blog-post_24.html）
- 美國設計申請案（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2010/04/blog-post.html）

Ron

關於不違反EPC Art.123(3)的圖式修正訴願案例 - T 236/12

EPO案例 T 236/12 （https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t120236du1.html）

[本案原文為德文，以下報導為依照Google英文翻譯的內容]

本案為歐洲專利無效異議案，案件資訊：
專利權人：Behr France Rouffach SAS
異議人：RENAULT s.a.s.
系爭專利：EPO Patent No. 1,728,658

系爭專利關於具有兩個鼓風機的汽車冷氣：


異議人提出的主要引證前案：D01: EP-A-0 867 319, D04: FR-A-2 750 461, 以及D16: EP-A-1 520 991，列舉我比較看得懂的前案圖示：


根據訴願決定，在口審（Oral proceedings）議題中，其中之一為兩方費用分擔，而本篇主要討論為「圖式修正」的議題。

專利範圍第1項描述汽車冷氣中雙鼓風機的機構，有馬達、兩個可移除縱向葉輪（impellers）、進氣口、風扇馬達等結構，為了要滿足技術特徵與範圍，專利權人（無效答辯）提出圖式置換。

為了要擴大專利範圍，申請人提出原始附圖（因為沒有太多細節）置換核准時的圖式，但原始圖式因為品質不好，沒有結構細節，但反而擴大了能解釋的專利範圍。

（可參考：歐洲與美國核准前修正筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/12/blog-post_25.html））

不過，這個變更可能會使得相關領域技術人員以較廣的圖式來解釋專利範圍，卻又不同於「核准時圖式」描述的實施例特徵，範圍又更廣了。

非但如此，也導致專利範圍解釋的困難度，影響發明的可實施性。

我撈出系爭專利原始送件的圖檔（01.06.2005）：




後來被要求換上品質比較好的圖式（16.09.2005）：




從以上審查歷史的變動可知，申請人為了要克服「形式上」的缺失提出了品質較好的圖式，卻「感受到專利範圍被限縮」的壓力。

無效異議人主張，根據Art. 83 EPC揭露規定，說明書應明確而完整揭露到讓相關領域技術人員可以實現的程度，專利權人修正的圖式不僅可能讓專利範圍不明確或解讀過廣，還可能無法實施。

Article 83 Disclosure of the invention
The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art. 

專利權人反駁，主張修正符合規定（Art. 123(3) EPC），認為專利範圍是否被擴大，根據Art. 69 EPC，應是申請專利範圍的文字而定。並主張相關領域技術人員要實施系爭案發明並沒有問題。

Article 69 Extent of protection
(1) The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. 

(2) For the period up to grant of the European patent, the extent of the protection conferred by the European patent application shall be determined by the claims contained in the application as published. However, the European patent as granted or as amended in opposition, limitation or revocation proceedings shall determine retroactively the protection conferred by the application, in so far as such protection is not thereby extended. 

歐洲訴願決定：

專利權人提出的修正為將原始送件圖式置換核准時圖式，這並無違法。

關於專利範圍的解釋（Art. 69 EPC）以及修正是否實質超出（Art. 123(3) EPC），訴願委員會表示以原始圖式置換核准時圖式並沒有得出專利範圍有擴大的問題，也就是圖式置換為品質不好的原始送件版並沒有實質影響專利範圍的解釋，也沒有擴大範圍的疑慮。

（編按，這至少是一個合理的判斷，但是為何要置換，感覺專利權人是希望能夠不要以圖式細節來限縮專利範圍的解釋，因此提出置換，而客觀地來看，這個變動並不影響專利範圍。）

"In the present case, the board cannot see that the scope of protection of the patent is extended if the substitute drawings are used instead of the drawings published with the patent specification to interpret the claims."

（編按，以下摘錄可為本案的重點）

圖式中不見的細節不會擴大專利範圍。

"... it does not conclude that the loss of information has extended the scope of protection of the patent."

並且，所漏失的技術資訊為次要特徵，不會影響專利範圍。

"The lost technical information relates to minor design details that do not affect the scope of the present claims."

因為專利範圍所描述的技術特徵已經足夠，且連結到原申請時圖式，使得相關領域技術人員可以明確地"想像"專利要保護的客體。

"Because the technical features of the claims are detailed and detailed enough in the description in conjunction with the original drawings, those skilled in the art can still clearly imagine what is protected and what it should look like."

將圖式置換到原始圖式仍符合Art. 123(3) EPC修正規定，因為相關領域專家可以理解其中技術特徵。

"The replacement of the drawings by the original drawings does not constitute a violation of Article 123 (3) EPC in the present case, because the expert can still understand with the changed drawings, like all technical features of the now determining the scope of protection claimed double fan assembly can be accomplished."

就訴願委員而言，修正後的圖式並沒有產生新而會擴大專利範圍解釋的問題。

"With regard to the interpretation of the claims, the amended drawings do not open up new, expanded possibilities of interpretation for the Chamber, nor do they raise new questions with regard to the clarity of the claims."

關於置換為原始送件的圖式，會不會有不明確的問題，這裡沒有答案，因為歐洲擴大訴願委員會並未作出應該要檢查圖式是否影響專利範圍明確性的決定。

總而言之，這個換回原始圖式的動作沒有讓相關領域技術人員有不能實施的疑慮，也不會影響專利範圍的解釋，就是符合修正規定。

EPO Case Law
https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2016/e/clr_ii_e_2_4_10.htm

2.4.10

Replacement of drawings 

In T 236/12 the drawings published in the patent specification had been replaced by those originally filed. Although the published drawings had disclosed technical information not derivable from those originals, their replacement did not broaden the scope of the patent. The technical features of the claims were explained in sufficient detail in the description, as read together with the originals, so the skilled person could still get a clear idea of the protected subject-matter and how it should look.

Ron