透過說明與硬體的關聯以克服不符101的核駁理由

筆記

這件專利案涉及一種在半導體製程中評估價值的技術，其中主要特徵在於利用數學方法由量測製程中的變數而得到所謂資料的價值，藉此判斷量測錯誤。顯然這個數學方法並沒有在第一次OA中取得審查委員的青睞，而被不符美國專利法第101條規定予以核駁。（專利範圍具體標的為101條內的四個法定可專利標的：程序、機械、製造與元件之組成）

這件專利案答辯主要面對的是要先克服「法定不予專利的抽象概念」，問題在於這些權利範圍的描述並未產生具體有效的技術轉變與特徵。
本案答辯建議是：本案原文並未限定任何硬體措施，但是因為應用在半導體製程，並非抽象概念，因此權利範圍應描述併入一些與硬體實際相關的連結關係，比如本案的物理與電性的描述，透過證明本發明有具體的轉換（physical transformation）克服抽象概念的問題。

本案答辯方向有：
(1) 透過答辯與權利範圍修訂，補入與半導體製程的相關性表達其中的技術特徵，限定在半導體製程的應用與相關裝置，而非一般目的的電腦系統而已，藉此證明非抽象概念；

 

 (2) 併入一些具體描述，即便是數學方法，仍可修正併入一些與晶圓物理特性相關的描述。

 (3) 答辯書說明本發明引用的量測資料是物理與電的特性，這些特性形成良率的控制因子。

透過上述權利範圍的限定，本案最後獲准專利。

Ron

美國專利改革法案下的DERIVATION PROCEEDING

美國專利改革法案下的DERIVATION PROCEEDING

因應美國專利改革法案的施行（09/16/2012），美國專利商標局提出新的專利程序-申請人調查程序（DERIVATION PROCEEDING），目的是要確認第一個提出專利申請的人就是真實的發明人，相關衍生出的程序將於03/16/2013施行，也就是美國專利改革法案施行後8個月後開始。

這個新個程序會讓非發明人提出的專利申請案不得獲准一個專利，如果真的發明人並非第一個提出專利申請的人，此發明人可以透過證明專利申請案中所主張的發明為自己開發的技術而挑戰該專利權，或甚至奪回專利權。相關的程序將由專利審判與上訴委員會（Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB）審理。

欲提出Derivation Proceeding以撤回非發明人授權而提出的專利申請案，有以下注意事項：
(1) March 16, 2013實施
(2) 向PTAB提出請願（petition）
(3) 提出足夠可以開始Derivation Proceeding的證明，至少證明一項範圍符合提出請願的資格
(4) Derivation Proceeding應於申請案公開（或是較早實質相等的申請案）後一年內提出
(5) PTAB主管判斷是否受理上訴
(6) 經PTAB審理可決定申請案發明人是否為真，或是申請人是否被授權
(7) PTAB可以因為專利權是否獲准的決定而延遲決定
(8) 若PTAB決定有發明人不實的事實，會導致專利被撤銷
(9) 在PTAB作出決定之前，相關當事人可以發出協議（agreement）修改發明人而終結程序
(10) 前述協議應與PTAB取得的證據一致，否則協議可能不准
(11) 若雙方有協調，應通知PTAB的主管

35 U.S.C. 135(a)原本規範的干擾程序（Interferences）已經重寫：

Derivation proceedings

(a) INSTITUTION OF PROCEEDING.--An applicant for patent may file a petition to institute a derivation proceeding in the Office. The petition shall set forth with particularity the basis for finding that an inventor named in an earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed. Any such petition may be filed only within the 1–year period beginning on the date of the first publication of a claim to an invention that is the same or substantially the same as the earlier application's claim to the invention, shall be made under oath, and shall be supported by substantial evidence. Whenever the Director determines that a petition filed under this subsection demonstrates that the standards for instituting a derivation proceeding are met, the Director may institute a derivation proceeding. The determination by the Director whether to institute a derivation proceeding shall be final and nonappealable.

(b) DETERMINATION BY PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD.--In a derivation proceeding instituted under subsection (a), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board shall determine whether an inventor named in the earlier application derived the claimed invention from an inventor named in the petitioner's application and, without authorization, the earlier application claiming such invention was filed. In appropriate circumstances, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board may correct the naming of the inventor in any application or patent at issue. The Director shall prescribe regulations setting forth standards for the conduct of derivation proceedings, including requiring parties to provide sufficient evidence to prove and rebut a claim of derivation.

(c) DEFERRAL OF DECISION.--The Patent Trial and Appeal Board may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding until the expiration of the 3–month period beginning on the date on which the Director issues a patent that includes the claimed invention that is the subject of the petition. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board also may defer action on a petition for a derivation proceeding, or stay the proceeding after it has been instituted, until the termination of a proceeding under chapter 30, 31, or 32 involving the patent of the earlier applicant.

(d) EFFECT OF FINAL DECISION.--The final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, if adverse to claims in an application for patent, shall constitute the final refusal by the Office on those claims. The final decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, if adverse to claims in a patent, shall, if no appeal or other review of the decision has been or can be taken or had, constitute cancellation of those claims, and notice of such cancellation shall be endorsed on copies of the patent distributed after such cancellation.

(e) SETTLEMENT.--Parties to a proceeding instituted under subsection (a) may terminate the proceeding by filing a written statement reflecting the agreement of the parties as to the correct inventors of the claimed invention in dispute. Unless the Patent Trial and Appeal Board finds the agreement to be inconsistent with the evidence of record, if any, it shall take action consistent with the agreement. Any written settlement or understanding of the parties shall be filed with the Director. At the request of a party to the proceeding, the agreement or understanding shall be treated as business confidential information, shall be kept separate from the file of the involved patents or applications, and shall be made available only to Government agencies on written request, or to any person on a showing of good cause.

(f) ARBITRATION.--Parties to a proceeding instituted under subsection (a) may, within such time as may be specified by the Director by regulation, determine such contest or any aspect thereof by arbitration. Such arbitration shall be governed by the provisions of title 9, to the extent such title is not inconsistent with this section. The parties shall give notice of any arbitration award to the Director, and such award shall, as between the parties to the arbitration, be dispositive of the issues to which it relates. The arbitration award shall be unenforceable until such notice is given. Nothing in this subsection shall preclude the Director from determining the patentability of the claimed inventions involved in the proceeding.

Ron
相關連結有：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/09/ii.html
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/09/iii.html

BEST MODE在美國專利法改革的角色

簡單來說，BEST MODE這個原本規範發明人/申請人提出專利申請時，應該揭露申請日時已知的最佳實施例（美國專利法第112條第一段），而且在原本美國專利法第282條所規範專利無效的理由也有BEST MODE這項。這自然是個規定，卻難以規範所有的人這樣做，如果一旦法庭上的爭論是BEST MODE，可能產生難以判斷與錯誤判斷的模糊地帶。

然而，根據美國專利改革法案（AIA），在35 USC 112, first paragraph中並未刪除應揭露BEST MODE的規定，也未刪除MPEP 2165中所規定BEST MODE的揭露要求，但在35 USC 282中則刪除BEST MODE為專利無效的理由。

（也就是說，當審查委員判斷出發明人於申請時並未揭露BEST MODE，因為審查指南的規定，該案可能會被核駁；但是審查時並未有此爭議，之後的專利無效或是侵權訴訟中，BEST MODE將不會成為專利無效的理由）

35 U.S.C. 282 Presumption of validity; defenses. (AFTER AIA)

(b) DEFENSES.--The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded:

(1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement, or unenforceability.

(2) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit on any ground specified in part II as a condition for patentability.

(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with--

(A) any requirement of section 112, except that the failure to disclose the best mode shall not be a basis on which any claim of a patent may be canceled or held invalid or otherwise unenforceable; or

(B) any requirement of section 251.

(3) Invalidity of the patent or any claim in suit for failure to comply with any requirement of sections 112 or 251 of this title,

(4) Any other fact or act made a defense by this title.

另外，針對主張優先權或是延續案的美國專利法第119, 120條的後續案，也不會被要求揭露BEST MODE。

其他法條參考：

35 U.S.C. 112 Specification.

The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

2165 The Best Mode Requirement

A third requirement of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112 is that:

The specification.. . shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.

"The best mode requirement creates a statutory bargained-for-exchange by which a patentee obtains the right to exclude others from practicing the claimed invention for a certain time period, and the public receives knowledge of the preferred embodiments for practicing the claimed invention." Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 963, 58 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

The best mode requirement is a safeguard against the desire on the part of some people to obtain patent protection without making a full disclosure as required by the statute. The requirement does not permit inventors to disclose only what they know to be their second-best embodiment, while retaining the best for themselves. In re Nelson, 280 F.2d 172, 126 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1960).

Determining compliance with the best mode requirement requires a two-prong inquiry. First, it must be determined whether, at the time the application was filed, the inventor possessed a best mode for practicing the invention. This is a subjective inquiry which focuses on the inventor's state of mind at the time of filing. Second, if the inventor did possess a best mode, it must be determined whether the written description disclosed the best mode such that a person skilled in the art could practice it. This is an objective inquiry, focusing on the scope of the claimed invention and the level of skill in the art. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 251 F.3d 955, 963, 58 USPQ2d 1865, 1874 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

The failure to disclose a better method will not invalidate a patent if the inventor, at the time of filing the application, did not know of the better method OR did not appreciate that it was the best method. All applicants are required to disclose for the claimed subject matter the best mode contemplated by the inventor even though applicant may not have been the discoverer of that mode. Benger Labs. Ltd. v. R.K. Laros Co., 209 F. Supp. 639, 135 USPQ 11 (E.D. Pa. 1962).

Ron
資料參考：USPTO, bitlaw.com

日本修法（2012年4月施行）筆記

日本修法（2012年4月施行）筆記

非專屬授權：
修法前：非獨占許可（非專屬授權）若沒有在專利局登記，不得對抗第三人，也就是，專利權若由原專利權人轉移到第三人，第三人具有可以對原被授權人授權的權利
修法後：非獨占許可（非專屬授權）若沒有在專利局登記，可以對抗第三人，也就是，即便專利權被轉移到第三人，該被授權人仍可實施專利，不需由第三人同意實施

冒領專利：
修法前：真正的權利人不能從冒領專利權的人奪回專利權，只能讓該專利無效
修法後：真正的權利人可以從冒領的人奪回專利權（從冒領人授權的被授權人仍可繼續實施）

新穎性優惠期：
修法前：新穎性優惠期僅適用專利局認可的有限場合
修法後：新穎性優惠期適用於專利權人自己授權公開的任何場合（6個月）

恢復專利權：
修法前：當超過專利相關費用補繳期限時，幾乎無法恢復失效的專利權，除非證明因為非歸咎於己的過失（天災）
修法後：只要有正當理由，期限超過1年內且理由消失後2個月內仍可恢復失效的專利權（包括未及時提交外文的譯本）

無效審判的修正時機：
修法前：經無效判決後（專利局審判部），專利權人上訴到法院，可以請求訂正，以取消該判決，再進行第二次無效審判（專利局審判部），之後由法院作出第二次判決
修法後：無效判決時（專利局審判部），會作出一次「判決預告（無效成立）」，讓專利權人訂正，之後才進入法院進行審判，不得再有訂正

侵害訴訟：
修法前：經專利侵害訴訟判決確定後，但專利權被判無效或訂正專利權內容，法院可能（可以）進行複審
修法後：專利侵害訴訟判決確定後，即使專利無效或訂正專利內容，仍不得對判決提出複審

專利權的改變：
修法前：專利權的改變（無效、訂正）係針對整體專利案，無效係針對整個專利案
修法後：專利權的改變可以針對每一項申請專利範圍，也就是可以部份無效

一事不再理：
修法前：無效審判已經確定的判決，任何人不得依據同一事實、同一證據提出再次審判
修法後：即使經無效判決，當事人與參加人以外的人可以依據同一事實、同一證據提出無效審判


Ron
資料參考：SHIGA International Patent Office 演講稿

日本專利程序（發明）

補充：日本專利局審判部處理不服專利審查的審理，包括拒絕查定（核駁）後的再審+訴願，亦包括核准後的異議、無效與訂正審判。
經專利局審判部審理後的程序全數由知識產權高等裁判所受理。
若有「侵害訴訟」的爭議，將由各地方裁判所（如地方法院）審理，之後上訴由知識產權高等裁判所受理。

其他參考：
日本發明專利
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/12/blog-post_30.html
日本新型專利
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/12/blog-post_6136.html

Ron
參考SHIGA International Patent Office 演講稿

大鯨魚還是贏了

大鯨魚還是贏了，正確地說，原告（小蝦米）並未提出可以建立均等論適用的證明，特別是因為軟體專利的描述常常是模糊與充斥著自我定義的技術名詞，因此可能難以單純以「文義侵害」作出侵權判斷，而需要進入均等論的判斷，但是如果沒有足夠的證據證明均等論的適用，就難以判斷侵權成立！

http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/11/blog-post.html


這是四年前所興的訴訟，涉及作業系統中檔案瀏覽介面的技術（Mirror Worlds的US6,006,227（227案）, US6,638,313（313案）, US6,725,427（427案）），分別為cover flow, time machine, spotlight等功能。當時在陪審團的初判下認為蘋果公司惡意侵權，因此判賠6億美元。在之後地方法院（2011年4月）認為原告因為是學術單位，並無損害的事實，因此並未同意此一賠償金額。

經上訴，在這次聯邦上訴法院（9/4/2012，U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington）同意之前地方法院的判決，認為蘋果公司並無侵權的事實，原因是Mirror Worlds提供的證據不足以證明因為侵權造成的損害，因此聯邦法院同意地方法院的決定--無侵權。
The necessary evidence was not put before the jury to support the verdict of infringement or damages. We therefore affirm the district court’s decisions in entering judgment of non-infringement.

這裡所述的「證據」在軟體案的判斷中頗為重要，因為軟體專利的描述常常是用「功能性」的描述，不像機構案可以明確定義出特定特徵的位置、關聯性，因此提供給陪審團或是法官明確的定義或是描述都是必要的步驟。

比如，法院就認為Mirror Worlds並未提供足夠的證據顯示被控侵權的物中何者比對到313案與427案的「cursor or pointer」：也就是這兩案中使用“cursor or pointer”產生文件堆疊的效果，但是文義上的比對若不符，則應以均等論來判斷，顯然Mirror Worlds並未有足夠的證明，也就是缺少這方面文件描述以建立均等論的判斷。法院也引述均等論的適用方式：『Under the doctrine of equivalents, “a product or proc-ess that does not literally infringe . . . the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is ‘equivalence’ between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the pat-ented invention.”』

判決文中舉例「cursor or pointer」的解釋可能有：「cursor or pointer」以及「回應使用者在顯示的文件堆上滑動游標或是指標，以瞥見文件的內容（文件圖案上可以一窺其中內容），而不用點入。
（The cursor or pointer limitation may be parsed into two components: 1) “a cursor or pointer” and 2) “respond-ing to a user sliding the cursor or pointer over said dis-played stack to display the glance view of the document. ）

由原本陪審團認定應賠償6億美金的決定，到沒有侵權的決定，真是天堂到地獄！

Ron
資料參考：cnet news
文件：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/11-1392.pdf

美國專利新法認定申請人為受讓人

筆記

在9.16.2012之前的美國專利舊法，專利申請人於提交專利申請時（包括商標）同時提供受讓書（assignment），但在9.16.2012實施專利新法後的新申請案，會認定專利申請人（applicant）即為受讓人（assignee），申請人可自行委任代理人，無需符合37CFR3.71, 3.73應提交經發明人讓與的受讓書的規定。

現階段（舊法）
一般來說，專利申請人本身應該是專利的受讓人（assignee），也就是專利審理期間（包括再審程序）的代表人，因此對於一件專利申請案來說，由發明人讓與給受讓人的簽署文件（assignement）為必要文件，相關的規範可參考37CFR3.71。

如果受讓人為一個人，就由此受讓人全權負責整個專利程序的控管、委任，情況較為單純；複雜的是，若受讓人部份包括發明人本人，任何專利程序的決定須由全體受讓人執行，也就是沒有一個人擁有所有的權利。

37CFR3.73規範受讓人的權利，專利的發明人為當然的專利擁有人，除非經過讓與（assignment），比如職務上發明通常會讓與給公司；商標的申請人也應為商標的擁有人，除非經過讓與。
讓與的程序就影響了專利或商標的擁有人（ownership），一般讓與需要受讓文件（assignment）。

[原CFR原文]
37 CFR §3.71 Prosecution by assignee.
(a)
Patents -- conducting of prosecution. One or more assignees as defined in paragraph (b) of this section may, after becoming of record pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, conduct prosecution of a national patent application or a reexamination proceeding to the exclusion of either the inventive entity, or the assignee(s) previously entitled to conduct prosecution.
(b)
Patents -- Assignee(s) who can prosecute. The assignee(s) who may conduct either the prosecution of a national application for patent or a reexamination proceeding are:
(1)
A single assignee. An assignee of the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined who is of record, or
(2)
Partial assignee(s) together or with inventor(s). All partial assignees, or all partial assignees and inventors who have not assigned their right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined, who together own the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined. A partial assignee is any assignee of record having less than the entire right, title and interest in the application or patent being reexamined.
(c)
Patents -- Becoming of record. An assignee becomes of record either in a national patent application or a reexamination proceeding by filing a statement in compliance with § 3.73(b) that is signed by a party who is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee.
(d)
Trademarks. The assignee of a trademark application or registration may prosecute a trademark application, submit documents to maintain a trademark registration, or file papers against a third party in reliance on the assignee's trademark application or registration, to the exclusion of the original applicant or previous assignee. The assignee must establish ownership in compliance with § 3.73(b).


§3.73 Establishing right of assignee to take action.
(a)
The inventor is presumed to be the owner of a patent application, and any patent that may issue therefrom, unless there is an assignment. The original applicant is presumed to be the owner of a trademark application or registration, unless there is an assignment. (b)(1) In order to request or take action in a patent or trademark matter, the assignee must establish its ownership of the patent or trademark property of paragraph (a) of this section to the satisfaction of the Director. The establishment of ownership by the assignee may be combined with the paper that requests or takes the action. Ownership is established by submitting to the Office a signed statement identifying the assignee, accompanied by either:
(i)
Documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee (e.g., copy of an executed assignment). For trademark matters only, the documents submitted to establish ownership may be required to be recorded pursuant to § 3.11 in the assignment records of the Office as a condition to permitting the assignee to take action in a matter pending before the Office. For patent matters only, the submission of the documentary evidence must be accompanied by a statement affirming that the documentary evidence of the chain of title from the original owner to the assignee was or concurrently is being submitted for recordation pursuant to § 3.11; or
(ii)
A statement specifying where documentary evidence of a chain of title from the original owner to the assignee is recorded in the assignment records of the Office (e.g., reel and frame number).
(2)
The submission establishing ownership must show that the person signing the submission is a person authorized to act on behalf of the assignee by:
(i)
Including a statement that the person signing the submission is authorized to act on behalf of the assignee; or
(ii)
Being signed by a person having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the assignee, e.g., an officer of the assignee.
(c)
For patent matters only:
(1)
Establishment of ownership by the assignee must be submitted prior to, or at the same time as, the paper requesting or taking action is submitted.
(2)
If the submission under this section is by an assignee of less than the entire right, title and interest, such assignee must indicate the extent (by percentage) of its ownership interest, or the Office may refuse to accept the submission as an establishment of ownership.

Ron
資料參考：USPTO Frequently Asked Questions