若功能性用語關係到發明的本質，仍有份量！（about Claims）

這是一個有關功能性用語的用處的判決

系爭專利為IBM的專利申請案：10/906,508，此案涉及一種確保記憶體測試軟體正確性的方法（METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR VERIFYING MEMORY TESTING SOFTWARE），其主張的權利範圍顯然有關於軟體專利，此案經USPTO核駁而IBM上訴至聯邦巡迴法院（CAFC）後確認，在前言（preamble）所記載的語言或是記載於權利範圍中功能性描述的內容具有專利的份量（patentable weight），特別是權利範圍中功能性用語是指出該發明的目的。

在USPTO審理階段，審查委員認為其中功能性描述為可預期的目的（intended purpose），因此應不具有實際的技術限制，如果要達到該項目的，應明確地記載在權利範圍中。到此來看，也如我認為的權利範圍應描述的方式，且依據一件2003年CAFC的案例：Minton v. Nat'l Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)，結論是當方法專利中"藉此"（whereby）的子句僅表達可預期的結果時，並無專利性的份量（not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited）。

進入CAFC階段時，法官同樣同意whereby子句並未有可專利份量，但對於此案在「verify the accuracy」的闡述卻與USPTO不同，認為其中的描述已經關聯到「發明的本質（essence of the invention）」，理應有權利範圍的影響，其中引用CAFC2010年的案例：Vizio, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n, 605 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2010)，若"for..."用語適當地界定該發明，並非僅是可預期的目的或是使用的描述。

此案的爭議源自USPTO引用US5,912,901對比10/906,508的Claims 1, 9, 17，USPTO認為各項前言「A method for "verifying the accuracy of logical-tophysical mapping software" designed for testing memory devices」並未限制權利範圍，因此解釋權利範圍並不包括for verifying the accuracy...的內容，因此認為系爭專利不具新穎性，但申請人上訴答辯此目的與引證案不同，CAFC認為USPTO並未能證明引證案已經揭露此目的，僅為透過比對記憶內容偵測記憶體錯誤，而非用於確認軟體的正確性，兩者有區隔。

系爭專利權利範圍在前言的部份寫出其技術目的，根據爭議內容，與引證案僅有此目的的差異，而此爭議僅涉及新穎性的核駁意見（anticipation rejection）

1. A method for verifying the accuracy of logical-to-physical mapping software designed for testing memory devices, said method comprising:

providing a built-in self test (BIST) fail control function to generate multiple simulated memory fails at various predetermined locations within a memory array of a memory device;

testing said memory array via a memory tester;

generating a bit fail map by said logical-to-physical mapping software based on all memory fails indicated by said memory tester, wherein said bit fail map indicates physical locations of all fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software; and

comparing said fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software to said various predetermined memory locations to verify the accuracy of said logical-to-physical mapping software.

9. A computer program product residing on a computer usable medium for verifying the accuracy of logical-to-physical mapping software designed for testing memory devices, said computer program product comprising:

program code means for utilizing a built-in self test (BIST) fail control function to generate multiple simulated memory fails at various predetermined locations within a memory array of a memory device;

program code means for testing said memory array via a memory tester;

program code means for generating a bit fail map by said logical-to-physical mapping software based on all memory fails indicated by said memory tester, wherein said bit fail map indicates physical locations of all fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software; and

program code means for comparing said fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software to said various predetermined memory locations to verify the accuracy of said logical-to-physical mapping software.

17. A built-in self-test (BIST) unit for verifying a logical-to-physical transform algorithm designed to test integrated circuit memory devices, said BIST unit comprising:

a built-in self test (BIST) fail control module for generating a plurality of simulated memory fails at various predetermined locations within a memory array of a memory device;

means for testing said memory array via a memory tester;

means for generating a bit fail map by said logical-to-physical mapping software based on all memory fails indicated by said memory tester, wherein said bit fail map indicates physical locations of all fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software; and

means for comparing said fail memory locations derived by said logical-to-physical mapping software to said various predetermined memory locations to verify the accuracy of said logical-to-physical mapping software.

結論：此爭議僅涉及anticipation（新穎性），並未討論到顯而易見性（obviousness），因此目前駁回USPTO的決定仍未證明系爭專利具有專利性，僅證明CAFC的態度是涉及發明本質的功能性用語仍有效力，至少可用於證明新穎性！

顯然CAFC法官認為前言或是whereby中功能性敘述對權利範圍仍有影響，不過僅有關連到發明本質的部份有用，對於解釋專利範圍在法院階段給予申請人有較多的解釋空間，不過也不會太廣，但是對於USPTO審理階段，仍應該在權利範圍中（元件描述）完整描述整個發明，而避免僅用功能性用語，避免過於模糊的地帶。然而，其實權利範圍仍可接受功能性用語，至少美國專利法如第112(f)條讓申請人以功能性語言描述權利範圍，但趨勢並不鼓勵。

Ron
資料參考：Patently-O, CAFC

多重附屬之"獨立項"的項次計算(About Claims)

如果一個獨立項（A, An開始）寫成"引用式"，而且為"多重依附式"，要如何計算，價錢如何計算？

先用推論的，會有這樣的討論是因為一般會認為"A"或"An"開始的專利範圍為獨立項，實際則不然，獨立項的判斷就是「沒有與其他權利項有依附關係」的權利請求項才為"獨立項"，這也是英文"Independent"的意義。

多重附屬之"獨立項"：
首先，"引用式"獨立項並不算為獨立項；再是，如果算為附屬項，則可以多重附屬項的方式計算項次與費用；價格會增加一筆多重附屬項的費用，項次會依照拆開多重依附的關係來計算。因此此類"獨立項"僅以多重附屬項的方式計算費用與項次。

找個實例：
比如此案從頭到尾的權利範圍都是"A"開始，表面上看來共有16項範圍，申請案與核准案一樣，沒有核駁OA，根據申請資料頁內費用表可得出：
1. 多重附屬項為一次收費（360元，漲價前）；
2. 從彼此依附關係來看，共有1項獨立項；
3. 附屬項關係頗為清楚也有點複雜，也就是多重附屬項被另一附屬項所依附，此項依附項又有可能被另一附屬項所依附，因此產生更多的附屬項次，此例雖表面上有16項，但經拆解後計算共有42項（含1項獨立項）。

新修正多重附屬項費用：

其他討論：

多項附屬項收費為固定一筆，因此不論有幾項多重附屬項，都僅收一筆錢
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/12/blog-post_05.html
權利範圍項次與費用的計算範例，多重附屬項項次會被拆開計算，如果有多重依附多重的情況，則被視為不適當，僅以1項計算（該項會被核駁）
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/12/blog-post_02.html
獨立項數目如何計算？引用式獨立項不算是獨立項
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/01/blog-post_5213.html

Ron

"non-transitory" computer-readable medium才是正確寫法！(About Claims)

根據美國專利局一篇對於「電腦可讀取媒體（computer readable media）」的可專利性的註釋，其中先提到專利局審查委員審理案件時應該以最廣而合理的角度根據說明書來闡釋專利範圍（相關案例In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319(Fed. Cir. 1989)），但對於「computer readable medium」要作出最廣的闡釋，此類medium理應涵蓋了非暫態的具體介質（non-transitory tangible media）與暫態的訊號（transitory propagating signals），因此關於「暫態的訊號」則會歸類為法定不可專利的標的，不符美國專利法第101條規定（相關案例為In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57(Fed. Cir. 2007)）。

申請人常用「computer-readable medium」保護沒有具體實物的訊號、方法等，因此應該排除涵蓋了暫態的訊號的解釋空間，因此，建議在主張此類範圍時，可以補入「non-transitory」在權利範圍中，並表示這個修訂不會有新事物的產生。
原文：
http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/notices/101_crm_20100127.pdf

實際案例：

參考案例(updated on June 8, 2016)：
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/06/in-re-nuijten-fed-cir-2007.html
可專利標的討論 - 暫態訊息不可專利案例 - In re Nuijten (Fed. Cir. 2007)

Ron
相關早期文章：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/02/lexicographer.html

刪除暫時撤回的權項

筆記

不論在答辯期間，或是訴願期限，總有權利範圍會暫時撤回（withdraw），也就是申請人希望保留卻不提出爭辯的權利範圍，當然此類也可能是限制選擇要求中未被選擇的權項。
根據MPEP 1214.05規定，這些撤回的權項在審定後將由審查委員刪除，並通知申請人。

1214.05 Cancellation of Withdrawn Claims

Where an appellant withdraws some of the appealed claims (i.e., claims subject to a ground of rejection that the appellant did not present for review in the brief), and the Board reverses the examiner on the remaining appealed claims, the withdrawal is treated as an authorization to cancel the withdrawn claims. It is necessary for the examiner to notify the appellant of the cancellation of the withdrawn claims. 

在MPEP 1215.03則細節規範審查委員可以執行的相關修訂

在撤回訴願時，相關的權利範圍視同刪除。

上訴人若未能在規定時間（如兩個月內）回應審查委員的核駁意見，訴願程序終結，相關權利範圍也視同刪除。

1215.03 Partial Withdrawal

A withdrawal of the appeal as to some of the claims on appeal operates as an authorization to cancel those claims from the application or reexamination proceeding and the appeal continues as to the remaining claims. The withdrawn claims will be canceled from an application by direction of the examiner at the time of the withdrawal of the appeal as to those claims. Examiner may use the following form paragraph to cancel the claims that are withdrawn from appeal at the time of the withdrawal:

12.121 Withdrawal of Appeal as to Some of the Claims on Appeal

The withdrawal of the appeal as to claims operates as an authorization to cancel these claims from the application or reexamination proceeding. See MPEP § 1215.03. Accordingly, these claims are canceled.

12.179.02 Dismissal Following New Ground(s) of Rejection in Examiner's Answer

Appellant failed to timely respond to the examiner's answer mailed on that included a new ground of rejection mailed on. Under 37 CFR 41.39(b), if an examiner's answer contains a rejection designated as a new ground of rejection, appellant must, within two months from the date of the examiner's answer, file either: (1) a request that prosecution be reopened by filing a reply under 37 CFR 1.111; or (2) a request that the appeal be maintained by filing a reply brief under 37 CFR 41.41, addressing each new ground of rejection, to avoid sua sponte dismissal of the appeal as to the claims subject to the new ground of rejection. In view of appellant's failure to file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 or a reply brief within the time period required by 37 CFR 41.39, the appeal as to claims is dismissed, and these claims are canceled.

Only claims remain in the application. The appeal continues as to these remaining claims. The application will be forwarded to the Board after mailing of this communication.

12.186 Dismissal Following A Supplemental Examiner"s Answer Written in Response to a Remand for Further Consideration of a Rejection

Appellant failed to timely respond to the supplemental examiner's answer mailed on that was written in response to a remand by the Board for further consideration of a rejection mailed on. Under 37 CFR 41.50(a)(2), appellant must, within two months from the date of the supplemental examiner's answer, file either: (1) a request that prosecution be reopened by filing a reply under 37 CFR 1.111; or (2) a request that the appeal be maintained by filing a reply brief under 37 CFR 41.41, to avoid sua sponte dismissal of the appeal as to the claims subject to the rejection for which the Board has remanded the proceeding. In view of appellant's failure to file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 or a reply brief within the time period required by 37 CFR 41.50(a)(2), the appeal as to claims is dismissed, and these claims are canceled.

Only claims remain in the application. The appeal continues as to these remaining claims. The application will be forwarded to the Board after mailing of this communication.

Ron
資料來源：bitlaw

用IP學地理--土耳其專利制度

土耳其雖是多數發明人/申請人不太在意的國家（但中國最近與土耳其達成雙邊合作協議），但土耳其卻因為同時為WIPO與EPO會員而擁有多數國家難以主張專利權的便利，所以除了其本國人來說，想要主張專利、商標的保護則可透過世界專利局與/或是歐洲專利局。

專利制度包括20年發明專利、10年登記新型專利與工業設計（兩者法規可互相套用），發明專利可於7年內主張實際審查，特別的是未主張實際審查的7年仍可有如登記新型的效力！
土耳其的法律、細則等都可自WIPO下載，但仍有資料不是很豐富的官方網站：
http://www.tpe.gov.tr/portal/default.jsp

官方網站可以切到英文網頁，其中比較有用的是專利、商標檢索，從最近cult of mac報導得知，土耳其有公司將"steve jobs"拿去註冊商標，我也找一下！

 商標檢索鍵入關鍵字steve jobs，結果如下：

工業設計檢索，再以Apple為例：

Ron

多螢技術簡單分析

多螢（multi-screen）技術是未來家庭、個人多媒體應用的重要趨勢，所謂多螢，簡單來說就是一個裝置的畫面可以顯示在另一個裝置的畫面上，比如手機畫面透過HDMI（有線）或是WHDI（wireless home digital interface，無線）手段顯示在另一個螢幕上。我覺得目前整合上十分完整的就是Apple TV，在同一個WLAN中可以輕易地將iphone/ipad的完整畫面顯示在電視上。Google TV也是有此企圖。新的Discovery and Launch（DIAL）規格讓一般手機透過程式可以將畫面輕易地透過機上盒顯示在電視上，或是直接投射在智慧電視上。

 

這類技術的專利應該是一大堆，初步分析一下，利用"multi-screen"與"wireless"關鍵字找美國專利中的分類，主要分佈在主分類為348（電視）、365（靜態資訊儲存與取得）、725（互動影像散布系統）等，也算是切中主題。
接著再由這些分類配合關鍵字multi-screen, wireless, tv等，得出約100件美國核准專利，這樣的數目就非常容易一探究竟。經初步瀏覽之後，發現除了美國公司（microsoft, google）以外，多數為日（sony, canon）、韓（samsung）大廠，尤其是Samsung目前獲得的專利數以及申請公開的數目比任何公司都多，其他如Sony都是做電視很厲害的！（註：這個分析僅是簡單地從標準關鍵字來搜尋，嚴格的分析恐怕不是這麼簡單）

看看其中幾件的權利範圍：

US 8,190,749，這件多螢技術應用在頭戴式顯示器與手機！
Google這件專利名為在多個裝置間存取一互動狀態的方法，也就是在多個裝置之間數位內容互動的技術，使用者可以在第一裝置上輸入指令，而將第二裝置所儲存的資訊傳輸到第一裝置上。簡單透過下圖可以表達這件專利的技術，第二裝置為手機一般的裝置，第一裝置則為電視機等的顯示裝置，透過網路可以交換資訊。此件案子特別的是，其中第一裝置可為頭戴式顯示器（HMD, head-mounted display），也就是將此頭戴式顯示器上所載的資訊可以與另一裝置交換。
根據專利範圍所描述，此頭戴式顯示器上執行的應用程式所產生的資訊與第二裝置上的應用程式產生交互作用，包括傳遞輸入指令與產生的資訊。

1. A method comprising:

storing contextual information that associates a state of a head-mounted display (HMD) with information that is associated with an interaction with a first application on the HMD to describe an interaction state on the HMD, wherein the state of the HMD comprises information about one or more applications of the HMD which are executed to provide predetermined functionality;

selecting a second device capable to provide access to the interaction state on the second device via a second application using the stored contextual information;

making a determination of attributes of the second device; and

based on the determination, the HMD transferring to the second device the stored contextual information and information associated with a user input to the first application on the HMD such that the second device is capable to provide via the second application access to the interaction state according to the user input to the first application.

US 2009/0284476
這件Apple的專利申請案涉及將使用者界面顯示到另一個裝置上，這對應到Apple TV上與ipad/iphone/ipod的互動。其中描述在手持裝置上的圖形使用者界面（GUI）投射到另一個裝置（如電視）上，顯示裝置將反映出使用者在手持裝置上的操作指令。從此案申請時專利範圍可知，Apple企圖由手持裝置、操作界面以至於顯示裝置端（Apple TV, iTV）等角度主張專利權。

1. A method for controlling a portable media device using an accessory, the method comprising, by the accessory:

providing configuration information to a portable media device;

receiving from the portable media device a first image signal that specifies a first graphical user interface image;

displaying the first graphical user interface image on a display device of the accessory;

detecting user operation of an input control of the accessory;

sending to the portable media device an input signal indicating that the input control was operated;

receiving from the portable media device a second image signal that specifies a second graphical user interface image to be displayed, the second graphical user interface image reflecting the operation of the input control; and

displaying the second graphical user interface image on the display device of the accessory.

US 8054319，這應該也算是一個多螢技術
Samsung這件專利更絕了，處理多個螢幕與多種應用的技術，專利涉及多螢幕管理與設定的方法。系統包括有多個螢幕，透過不同的方法顯示多個內容，設定時可指定透過特定方法設定各螢幕顯示的內容與輸出入管道。
權利範圍第1項界定了多螢幕的管理與設定方法，先由數位電視或是機上盒取得服務，產生多個顯示幕，顯示幕可為一個顯示器的多個虛擬顯示區域，接著連結各顯示幕與對應服務，並顯示。

1. A method of configuring and managing a multiscreen, the method comprising:

receiving a plurality of broadcasting services in a digital television or a digital set top box;

generating a plurality of display screens, wherein each of the plurality of display screens is a virtual screen to present an output composition of a physical display device;

generating a plurality of logical screens, wherein each of the plurality of logical screens is a virtual screen to be associated with a display screen of the plurality of display screens and a display area on each of the plurality of display screens;

associating the plurality of broadcasting services with the plurality of logical screens;

associating the plurality of logical screens with the plurality of display screens;

discovering a display screen set including active display screens from among the plurality of display screens; and

discovering a screen set including active logical screens from among logical screens associated with a current display screen,

wherein each of the plurality of display screens is optionally associated to zero or more video output ports, and

wherein each of the output ports is for connection to an external device.

我透過一些簡單的APP也算是應用了多螢技術：
Slideshow Remote
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/slideshow-remote-for-powerpoint/id328556878?mt=8
http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/01/remote-presentation-control.html

Doceri（數位白板）
http://doceri.com/

Ron

利用幾何圖案解鎖的專利

「利用幾何圖案解鎖」果然有個頗為強大的專利案，這樣的權利範圍恐怕不是太容易迴避，而且專利優先權可以追溯到西元2000年！（但他並未在其他國家主張專利，表示也阻卻了其他公司可能可以獲得類似的專利的可能）

美國專利US 8,352,745（System and method for controlling user access to an electronic device）的專利權人Micron Technology是個記憶體（尤其是固態硬碟）的公司，其專利佈局多半為半導體儲存裝置、資料處理等，所以這件源自2000年的專利佈局十分特殊。

從專利家族（用EPO網站查即可）來看，這件US 8,352,745的僅"一脈相承"源自2000年2月23日申請的09/511,092（獲准專利US6766456），其中歷經多次延續申請案（CA）的過程，家族中獲准專利還有US7877612、US8176547，並沒有其他國家佈局。

根據這一系列專利說明書來看，專利涉及存取電腦系統的使用者認證方法，其中認證採取預先設定輸入的內容，之後透過比對使用者輸入與此預設內容達到認證的目的，其中列舉了不少認證的方式，比如：透過鍵盤產生的文字、滑鼠軌跡、聲音認證，以及目前受到討論的「幾何圖形」，說明書也已經提及觸控屏，其中共同點就是電腦系統先預設使用者自己設定的比對資料，之後要求使用者用同樣的內容做一次，比對預設的內容來認證。

當時揭露書已經畫出所謂的「幾何圖案」：

判斷步驟也涉及目前解鎖的技術：

最早母案獲准的專利US6766456的權利範圍來看，顯然在2000年時電腦系統中難以採用幾何圖案來認證使用者，並不可能想到如今觸控的應用，蘋果公司也遲到2005年申請滑動解鎖的專利（可參考：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/05/blog-post_16.html、http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/10/unlocking-device.html、http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/10/blog-post_4416.html）。

US6766456 Claim 1：

1. A method of authenticating a user of an electronic device, the method comprising:

receiving security information from a user,

receiving in the electronic device an authorization pattern provided by a mouse, wherein the authorization pattern identifies a particular movement made by the mouse;

determining whether the authorization pattern matches a stored pattern;

measuring a duration of time between the receipt of the security information and the authorization; and

granting the user access to the electronic device in the event of a satisfactory match and the duration of time is less than a threshold.

US 8,352,745 Claim 1界定一個系統，包括一個觸控屏，讓使用者沿著一個方向以描繪幾何圖案的方式輸入，以及一個處理電路，用以比對使用者輸入的幾何圖案與記載在記憶體中預設的幾何圖案。

1. A system comprising:

a touch screen upon which a user is to enter, by drawing, a geometric pattern in a specified direction to gain access to the system; and

a processing circuit coupled to the touch screen to compare the user entered geometric pattern to a predefined geometric pattern stored in a memory.

Claim 11界定一個方法，包括接收使用者透過觸控屏輸入的幾何圖案，以及判斷幾何圖案是否接近（approximate）儲存的圖案。

11. A method comprising:

receiving a geometric pattern entered by a user on a touch screen of a system to gain access to the system, the geometric pattern being entered by the user by drawing the geometric pattern in a specified direction; and

determining with one or more computer processors if the user entered geometric pattern approximates a stored geometric pattern.

後記：
從這件老早的專利揭露書來看，具有"遠見"的揭露書確實會帶來無法預料的可能性，即便是天馬行空（但要有實施方式），仍可盡量將所知相關的可能應用都揭露出來，誰也不知過了10年會不會有類似的科技產生，而且所揭露的內容即便不拿來專利，也可以阻卻後續別人取得會阻礙自己發展的專利！當然，除了分割案外，很多措施（如continued application, CIP）都是美國才有的。
鼓勵在經費容許的範圍內申請美國案，美國案因為自我要求，多數比台灣、大陸都早會得知審查結果，可以再以美國案加速台案審查（事實上，台灣審查委員也會主動參考）。

Ron
資料參考：Patently-O