2015年3月10日 星期二

包括多項獨立項的歐洲專利異議階段的案例

本篇列舉超過一項獨立項的歐洲專利異議階段的案例,透過這些案例來學習歐洲專利審查對此議題的態度與審查方式。

歐洲專利法在發明單一性的規定下要求一件專利僅能包括一組獨立請求項,但仍有例外,歐洲專利法Rule 43(2)規定可以包括多項獨立項的條件有:多個相互關聯的產品、相同產品的不同用途、對特定問題提出的可供選擇的方案。

EPC Rule 43(2)
Without prejudice to Article 82, a European patent application may contain more than one independent claim in the same category (product, process, apparatus or use) only if the subject-matter of the application involves one of the following:
(a) a plurality of interrelated products,
(b) different uses of a product or apparatus,
(c) alternative solutions to a particular problem, where it is inappropriate to cover these alternatives by a single claim.

案例討論一:
案號:T 0978/10
申請號:05012193.8
系爭專利名稱:Public Access CPR and AED Device
申請人:Revivant Corporation
涉及法規:
EPC Art. 76(1), 84, 52(1), 54(1), 54(2)
EPC R. 43(2), 115(2)
RPBA Art. 15(3)
案由:專利申請人對歐洲專利局審查核駁意見(申請號:05012193.8)提出訴願,此案為歐洲申請案No.00913721.7的分割申請案。

引證案:
D2: DE-A-196 30 951
D8: WO-A-99/09929

訴願人提出的訴願理由有:
1. 本案請求項1, 2範圍明確,其中引用多處說明書段落證明支持請求項的技術
2. 本案請求項1, 2為兩個獨立請求項,兩者共存本案並符合EPC Rule 43(2),理由主要是兩個獨立範圍為解決問題的可選擇方案
3. 請求項內用語為明確
4. 本案具新穎性與進步性

對於以上第2點,審查委員認為請求項1, 2並非解決特定問題的選擇方案,不符Rule 43(2),但提示請求項2可改寫為請求項1的附屬項

請求項1, 2:
1. A medical treatment system for treatment of a patient, wherein said medical treatment system is intended to be used in an environment wherein the device may be removed from a secure storage device and deployed upon the patient by a first operator pending arrival of a second operator, said medical treatment system comprising: 

a plurality of medical devices
means for controlling physical access to the plurality of medical devices; 
means for controlling functional enablement of a medical device included within the plurality of medical devices; 
means for identifying the first operator and permitting physical access to a medical device by the first operator while prohibiting functional enablement of the medical device to the first operator; 
means for identifying the second operator and permitting functional enablement of a medical device included within the plurality of medical devices upon identification of the second operator; 
wherein the means for controlling physical access is operable to permit physical access to a medical device included within the plurality of medical devices depending upon the identity of the first operator; and
the means for controlling functional enablement is operable to permit functional enablement of a medical device included within the plurality of medical devices depending upon the identity of the second operator;
wherein at least one of the medical devices amongst the plurality of medical devices is capable of both operating in a non-therapeutic mode and a therapeutic mode, and the controller permits the first operator to operate the at least one medical device in a non-therapeutic mode while prohibiting the first operator from operating the at least one medical device in a therapeutic mode. 

2. A medical treatment system for treatment of a patient, wherein said medical treatment system is intended to be used in an environment wherein the device may be removed from a secure storage device and deployed upon the patient by a first operator pending arrival of a second operator, said medical treatment system comprising: 

a plurality of medical devices
means for controlling physical access to the plurality of medical devices; 
means for controlling functional enablement of a medical device included within the plurality of medical devices; 
means for identifying the first operator and permitting physical access to a medical device by the first operator while prohibiting functional enablement of the medical device to the first operator; 
means for identifying the second operator and permitting functional enablement of a medical device included within the plurality of medical devices upon identification of the second operator; 
wherein the means for controlling physical access is operable to permit physical access to a medical device included within the plurality of medical devices depending upon the identity of the first operator; and
the means for controlling functional enablement is operable to permit functional enablement of a medical device included within the plurality of medical devices depending upon the identity of the second operator;
wherein the at least one medical device is an automatic external defibrillator, and the controller permits access to the automatic external defibrillator to the first operator, thereby allowing the first operator to install the automatic external defibrillator on the patient, but the system prohibits the first operator from operating the automatic external defibrillator to apply defibrillating shock to the patient, and the system permits the second operator to operate the automatic external defibrillator to apply defibrillating shock to the patient

以上兩項看來是極為相像的範圍,差異僅在wherein子句所描述的功能上,這應該是很有可能被視為是解決同一問題的兩個方案,不過,結果並非如此。

案例討論二:
案號:T 2495/11
申請號:04747891.2
系爭專利名稱:IMAGE PICKUP APPARATUS AND SYNCHRONIZATION SIGNAL GENERATING APPARATUS
申請人:Sony Corporation
涉及法規:
EPC Art. 92
EPC R. 43, 61, 63 (2007), 164 (2007)
EPC 1973 R. 67
案由:專利申請人對歐洲專利局審查核駁意見(申請號:04747891.2,基於國際申請案:PCT/JP2004/010527)提出訴願。

系爭專利為一種影像擷取裝置,以及同步訊號產生裝置。其中具有多項獨立請求項如下,顯然大概就是區分兩種請求範圍,影像擷取裝置以及同步訊號產生裝置,涉及EPC Rule 43(2)的規定,以下列舉訴願階段的claims(WO2005009031),但是EPO目前公開的樣貌已經不同。
1. An image pick-up device comprising: 
image signal generation means for generating an image signal of a variable frame-rate picked-up image; 
drive-and-control means for driving and controlling the image signal generation means; 
setting information generation means for generating image pick-up setting information to generate an image signal which is frame-synchronized with the image signal generated by the image signal generation means; and 
output means for outputting the image signal generated by the image signal generation means and the image pick-up setting information. 

7. An image pick-up device comprising: 
image signal generation means for generating an image signal of a variable frame-rate picked-up image; and 
drive-and-control means for receiving image pick-up setting information to generate an image signal that is frame-synchronized with the image signal of a reference variable frame-rate picked-up image, and controlling a driving operation of the image signal generation means based on this image pick-up setting information, thereby frame-synchronizing the image signal generated by the image signal generation means with the image signal of the reference variable frame-rate picked-up image. 

15. A synchronization-signal-generating device for supplying a synchronization signal to an image pick-up device having image signal generation means for generating an image signal of a variable frame-rate picked-up image, comprising: 
setting information generation means for generating image pick-up setting information which is used to frame-synchronize the image signal generated by the image signal generation means of the image pick-up device with a reference frame; 
synchronization signal generation means for generating the synchronization signal that corresponds to the reference frame; 
synchronization signal output means for outputting the generated synchronization signal with the generated image pick-up setting information being inserted thereinto; and 
control means for setting the reference frame. 

17. An image pick-up device comprising: 
an image signal generation portion that generates an image signal of a variable frame-rate picked-up image; 
a controller driving and controlling the image signal generation portion
a setting information generation portion that generates image pick-up setting information to generate an image signal that is frame-synchronized with the image signal generated by the image signal generation portion; and 
an output portion that outputs the image signal generated by the image signal generation portion and the image pick-up setting information. 

(這裡僅討論43(2))對於申請人提出申請案符合EPC Rule 43(2)多項獨立請求項例外情事的主張,歐洲專利訴願委員會認為:
  1. 這裡有關EPC Rule 43(2)的爭議源自於歐洲專利局並未對全部的請求項進行檢索,這是單一性的考量;
  2. claims 1, 7的共同技術特徵為"frame rate synchronisation signals",但此被認為不具新穎性,因此這兩項獨立項不符43(2)所規定的僅能單一獨立項的例外情事;
  3. claim 1與claim 15界定不同的裝置,不符43(2)規定的例外情事;
  4. claim 17與claim 1為一樣的發明標的,僅差在描述方式,缺乏請求項簡明的撰寫要求(lack of conciseness);
  5. 對於claim 1的附屬項,即便是附屬項,但是仍有並非連結於一個發明概念下的問題。
案例討論三:
案號:T 1350/08
申請號:04727431.1
系爭專利名稱:Apparatus to generate parameter for NTRU, NTRU decryption and
encryption system, apparatus, method and program implementing
said parameter generating unit
申請人:Panasonic Corporation
涉及法規:
EPC Art. 83, 84, 111(1)
EPC R. 43(2)
案由:專利申請人對歐洲專利局審查核駁意見(申請號:04727431.1)提出訴願。

在此僅討論EPC Rule 43(2)的議題,本案經訴願後,確認其中兩項獨立請求項為符合EPC Rule 43(2)可以在一件歐洲專利案中具備兩項以上獨立項的例外情事。

根據歐洲專利局公報,本案有很多獨立項,在此不全部列舉,可直接看結論。

本案在專利審查時,被認定專利獨立請求項之間不符EPC Rule 43(2)的規定,但經申請人提出修正,獨立請求項包括一裝置項(claim 1)、兩個方法項(claims 14, 17),以及兩個產品裝置項(claims 16, 19)。訴願委員會認為以上方法與產品裝置項為互補的加密與解密的功能,判斷為符合43(2)的規定。

以上獨缺claim 1,但認為claim 1的附屬項claims 11-13已經界定以上有關加解密等不可分割的技術特徵,也一同符合43(2)的例外情事。

本案符合EPC Rule 43(2)規定。

補充:
歐洲訴願委員會認為修正後請求項仍應判斷是否符合Rule 43(2),案例有G 1/91 (OJ 1992, 253),也就是原請求項若已符合單一性規定,之後經過修正,仍不得違反單一性規定。而且,重點是,在專利獲准後「異議階段」若不符單一性規定,還不得提出分割案。
關於EPC Rule 43(2)規定的異議案例有T 263/05 (OJ 2008, 329)。
關於包括多個獨立請求項而又符合單一性規定的案例:T 1416/04。

結論:
從我快速瀏覽所搜尋到有關43(2)多項獨立項的救濟案例中,判斷時考量了是否各項獨立項(即便是附屬項也有此考量)同在一個發明概念下,且此發明概念具有新穎特徵(即考量STF);另還連結「簡明」的請求項撰寫要求,看來,用不同語言界定同一發明,在EPO會有些問題。一般來說,對於不同的發明標的是否有一定要連結的必要性,EPO看得很緊,能夠上訴成功的極少。

比如:插座/插頭、鑰匙/門鎖、螺絲/螺帽、加密/解密等可歸類符合EPC Rule 43(2)可以在一件歐洲專利案中包括一項以上獨立請求項的例外情事規定。

本討論案例檔案:
http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t100978eu1.pdf

Ron

2015年3月9日 星期一

蓄意侵權案例討論 - Bard Peripheral v. W.L. Gore. (Fed. Cir. 2015)

「蓄意(willful)」就是知道而故意。專利系統透過早期公開以及核准公告讓相關權利成為公眾知悉,然而,是否專利公開或公告為蓄意侵權判斷的要件,顯然不是,也不見得公平,因為侵權判斷仍是一個「各說各話」的問題,顯然,「證據」與「判斷標準」是重要關鍵。產品製造者已知有專利但是作出迴避,但仍有侵權疑慮,這是否是蓄意侵權?專利權人提出警告,但是產品製造者自認沒有侵權而繼續生產相關產品,這是否是蓄意侵權?這關於「應注意的義務(duty of due care)」標準

一般原則:
(1)被告已經知悉相關權利歸屬(已知,或被告知);
(2)被告再沒有合理基礎下繼續執行侵權行為。(Underwater Devices

在Seagate案例中可得到蓄意侵權的要件(http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/01/in-re-seagate-technology-llc-fed-cir.html):
蓄意侵權應由疑似侵權者證明有「客觀的不注意(輕忽)(objective recklessness)」的事實。

但本案例在蓄意侵權的標準有一番爭論與波折。

本案例討論:
專利權人:Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.(BPV)
侵權被告:W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
系爭專利:US6436135

前情提要:
地方法院2010年判決為專利有效,而蓄意侵權成立。隨後於2012年上訴CAFC,CAFC聯席法官確認地院侵權判決,但繼續審理「蓄意侵權」的事實,不過認為問題頗為複雜,於是作出應重頭審理的決定,認為應以正確的標準判斷蓄意侵權。

發回地方法院重審,在2013年審判中,Gore主張一個法律問題,認為原告BPV沒有立場提出侵權告訴,應該是另一個被授權專利的公司Bard Inc.,要求撤銷侵權告訴,但此主張被否決,因為到了1996年Bard公司併入BPV,法律問題不存在(這部分有關專利權移轉與授權(專屬)與是否有公開文件的討論在訴訟中占了頗大的篇幅,不過在法院見解一致外,Gore也未提出新事證翻轉法院見解),認為Gore侵權成立

補充:上訴法院是否要/不要對特定議題支持原法院決定的考量:
"To be sure, there are exceptional circumstances in which a panel may not adhere to the decision in a prior appeal in the same case, when “(1) the evidence in a subsequent trial is substantially different; (2) controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of the law applicable to the issues; or (3) the earlier ruling was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.”Id. This is not such a case."

關於蓄意侵權討論:
專利權人在侵權訴訟中應負有舉證責任,特別是蓄意(willfil)侵權的告訴,專利權人應提出足以證實被告有蓄意侵權的行為證據。

法院作出蓄意侵權決定的依據是去年的兩件最高法院決定,大概就是「證據要明確,法院有裁量權」:
Highmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Management Sys., Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1744 (2014)
Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1749 (2014)
一些討論見於:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/05/octane-fitness-v-icon-health-supreme.html,應有更細節的討論就是了(http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-1163_8o6g.pdf

這個蓄意侵權的判決是基於幾次先前訴訟都認為蓄意侵權成立的決定,且Gore並未提出新的事證,且一直圍繞在專利權移轉、授權與發明人權利等議題,上訴法院維持原判。

系爭專利US6436135揭露一種人工血管移植技術(Prosthetic vascular graft)。
發明人為:David Goldfarb,申請日早於1974年,公告日在2002年,在當時專利保障17年的規定中,專利權可以維持到2019年,到現在還有效!這28年的專利審查過程形成潛水艇專利,也沒有早期公開(美國於2000年開始實施早期公開),如果業界一致往這個方向發展,應該很難避免權利衝突(interference)與侵權問題,如Gore的ePTFE。

ePTFE:

在授讓資料中瞭解,專利權於2007年移轉給Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.,訴訟資料中可知,發明人/原專利權人Goldfarb已將將專利權「專屬授權」給Bard,並於2003年對Gore提出侵權告訴,即便被告提出專利無效、可主張權力、發明人不實、平行發展該發明(沒有早期公開制度衍生的問題)等訴求,但都因證據不足而判專利權仍有效,更在地院判決為蓄意侵權,以及高達近2億美金的賠償,蓄意侵權再判兩倍賠償

結論:
上訴到CAFC,因為Gore沒有新事證,維持地方法院判決。
"Gore’s position was not susceptible to a reasonable conclusion that the patent was invalid on inventorship grounds."

後語:蓄意與否,永遠是個問題!

判決文:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1114.Opinion.1-7-2015.1.PDF

資料參考:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/01/revisiting-willful-infringement.html
http://www.gore.com/MungoBlobs/168/901/ePTFE_INNOVATIONS_PAPER.pdf

Ron

2015年3月5日 星期四

商業實施為取得商標權的要件(申請時應已商業實施)

此案例告訴我們取得商標的「商業實施」為主要要件,甚至是商業實施日期為商標取得要件的重要性。

有關商業實施的商標註冊規定摘要如下,顯然,「商業實施」是取得商標權的最重要條件,包括可以杜絕他人使用相同或近似商標的商業使用,已經商業實施的人可以提出使用的商標申請,讓取得商標權的人可以商業實施該商標權,以及只有持續商業實施才能延長該商標權。

15 U.S.C. §1051. Registration of trademarks
(a)
(1)The owner of a trademark used in commerce may request registration of its trademark on the principal register hereby established by paying the prescribed fee and filing in the Patent and Trademark Office an application and a verified statement, ...
(2)The application shall include specification of the applicant's domicile and citizenship, the date of the applicant's first use of the mark, the date of the applicant's first use of the mark in commerce, the goods in connection with which the mark is used, and a drawing of the mark.
(3)The statement shall be verified by the applicant and specify that--
(C)the mark is in use in commerce; and
(D)to the best of the verifier's knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use such mark in commerce either in the identical form thereof or in such near resemblance thereto as to be likely, ...

(b)
(1)A person who has a bona fide intention, under circumstances showing the good faith of such person, to use a trademark in commerce may request registration of its trademark on the principal register hereby established by paying the prescribed fee and filing in the Patent and Trademark Office an application and a verified statement, in such form as may be prescribed by the Director.
...
(3)The statement shall be verified by the applicant and specify--
(A)that the person making the verification believes that he or she, or the juristic person in whose behalf he or she makes the verification, to be entitled to use the mark in commerce;
(B)the applicant's bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce;

(c)
Amendment of application under subsection (b) to conform to requirements under subsection (a). At any time during examination of an application filed under subsection (b), an applicant who has made use of the mark in commerce may claim the benefits of such use for purposes of this Act, by amending his or her application to bring it into conformity with the requirements of subsection (a).

(d)
(1)Within six months after the date on which the notice of allowance with respect to a mark is issued under section 13(b)(2) [15 USC 1063(b)(2)] to an applicant under subsection (b) of this section, the applicant shall file in the Patent and Trademark Office, together with such number of specimens or facsimiles of the mark as used in commerce as may be required by the Director and payment of the prescribed fee, ...
(2)...Any request for an extension under this paragraph shall be accompanied by a verified statement that the applicant has a continued bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and specifying those goods or services identified in the notice of allowance on or in connection with which the applicant has a continued bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. ...

案例討論:

商標權人:David Couture("PLAYDOM") 
商標使用者:Playdom, Inc.

Couture商業實施"PLAYDOM"的證據包括註冊域名「www.playdominc.com」,其中提供影片製作的服務。不過,卻因為在商標註冊申請日時並未提供任何服務,有段空窗期,但此未商業實施的期間成為商標權被撤銷的理由,其中雖商標代理人提出商標權之申請為基於商標的善意使用(bona fide intention),但商標權人未能提出證據而被判無效。

David Couture於2008年提出"PLAYDOM"的商標申請人,提出商標使用的證據時,提出www.playdominc.com網頁的擷取畫面,但內容僅有『Welcome to PlaydomInc.com』,並表示所要提供的影片製作服務,但網頁仍在建設中,沒有具體內容。


playdominc.com網站服務卻遲至2010年才開始,商標權已於2009年取得(No.3560701):


Playdom, Inc.也有"Playdom"的商標權,於2009/2/9提出申請,目前狀態有效:LIVE,同時註冊有playdom.com的域名,主要是提供電視遊戲、手機遊戲、社群網站遊戲等。蠻有趣的事情是,"playdom"曾經是時代華納的商標。



當Playdom, Inc.(本次被上訴人)於2009年提出「playdom」商標申請,引用David Couture(本次上訴人)的商標而被核駁,而Playdom, Inc.於是提出撤銷David Couture的商標的請願程序,認為上訴人的商標權因為在申請時並未商業實施,應為無效(自始不存在)。


5年後,於2014年,訴願委員會作出撤銷成立,認為商標申請時僅在網頁上標注並不是商業使用,並沒有實質提供服務。於是,David Couture提出上訴。

CAFC階段:
同意訴願委員會的意見,對於商業實施的規定如下,引用15USC1051,商業實施指的是實施註冊商標的相關服務,David Couture在商標申請時並未商業實施,如果沒有商業實施,也不能保留商標權。而上訴人雖人主張已經是處於預備商業實施(preparations to use a mark incommerce),但CAFC法官認為並不足以證明這是商業實施,而應該是「實際上已經執行(actually used in conjunction with the services)」。
"on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce, or the services are rendered in more than one State or in the United States and a foreign country and the person rendering the services is engaged in commerce in connection with the services."

結論:
CAFC同意訴願委員會撤銷商標權的意見。
在訴願委員會審理期間,David Couture曾經要求修改商標申請書,想要補入一些善意使用者商標權的聲明等,但是這些修正不能在商標完成註冊(核准)後,只能在商標申請中提出。

後語:
取得美國註冊商標,顯然商業實施是個重要的必要條件,如果僅是用一個網頁註明有相關服務,卻沒有實質商業行為,仍不足以取得商標權,特別是還寫上"under construction",這樣更證明相關服務並未準備好。
在某些案例中(如Buti v. Impressa Perosa),如果餐點在義大利提供,但尚未在美國提供,在美國僅為行銷某咖啡,甚至還提供了免費試用,仍不能認定是商業實施。
要稱為商業實施,要同時具備提供服務與行銷等條件。


判決文:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/14-1480.Opinion.2-26-2015.1.PDF
資料參考:
http://patentlyo.com/patent/2015/03/trademark-registration-rendering.html

Ron

2015年3月4日 星期三

美國專利單一性討論 - MPEP1893.03(d)

筆記
(延續http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/03/101.html討論

美國專利審查基準MPEP1893.03(d)(源自37 C.F.R. 1.499)規定的發明單一性(Unity of Invention),其中對於國際申請案進入美國階段的專利申請案考量發明單一性時,就是根據STF的定義,如以下準確的定義:
"As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art."

MPEP1893.03(d)摘錄:
特別提到,審查委員考量發明單一性時,不同於美國專利實務上的限制要求,而是針對國際申請案作出一般單一性考量。也就是,主張優先權進入美國,以及基於35USC371由國際申請組織(主要是指WIPO)進入美國國家階段的申請案有不同的考量
"Examiners are reminded that unity of invention (not restriction practice pursuant to 37 CFR 1.141 - 1.146 ) is applicable in international applications (both Chapter I and II) and in national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371 . Restriction practice in accordance with 37 CFR 1.141 - 1.146 continues to apply to U.S. national applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) , even if the application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) claims benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 and 365 (c) to an earlier international application designating the United States or to an earlier U.S. national stage application submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371."

進入美國國家階段的國際申請案審查時,USPTO仍會作出一般如「限制選擇」的要求,這雖不同於一般國家的實務,但是審查後,仍可在上位專利獲准後以rejoinder(重返程序)作出專利範圍重返的動作。
"The sections of the MPEP relating to double patenting rejections (MPEP § 8.4 ), election and reply by applicant (MPEP § 8.8) , and rejoinder of nonelected inventions (MPEP § 821.04 ) generally also apply to national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371."

可參考:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/10/rejoinder.html

這段提到,發明單一性的規定,即便各項技術分屬不同技術類別,但仍可以併入在同一組專利範圍內,也就是申請人可以在同一專利申請案中置入多項(甚至多項獨立項)具有共同技術特徵的請求項範圍。
"The principles of unity of invention are used to determine the types of claimed subject matter and the combinations of claims to different categories of invention that are permitted to be included in a single international or national stage patent application. See MPEP § 18.0 for a detailed discussion of Unity of Invention. The basic principle is that an application should relate to only one invention or, if there is more than one invention, that applicant would have a right to include in a single application only those inventions which are so linked as to form a single general inventive concept."

這段提到「specially adapted」的問題。發明人若主張以一特定製程製作某產品(specially adapted),也就是主張的製程就是為了製作主張範圍內的產品,兩者之間確實具有技術關聯性,但是否可以被置入在同一專利案中?這裡提到,"specially adapted"並非隱含該產品不能被不同的製程所製造。
"A process is “specially adapted” for the manufacture of a product if the claimed process inherently produces the claimed product with the technical relationship being present between the claimed process and the claimed product. The expression “specially adapted” does not imply that the product could not also be manufactured by a different process."

這段討論「specifically designed」。當界定某裝置或手段為特別設計用以實現某程序時,裝置與流程具有技術關聯性,但是"specifically designed"卻非隱含該裝置或手段並非可以用於其他流程,也非隱含該流程不能使用其他裝置或手段。
"An apparatus or means is specifically designed for carrying out the process when the apparatus or means is suitable for carrying out the process with the technical relationship being present between the claimed apparatus or means and the claimed process. The expression specifically designed does not imply that the apparatus or means could not be used for carrying out another process, nor does it imply that the process could not be carried out using an alternative apparatus or means."

本段提供各申請人/發明人一個解套的方式(針對美國國際申請案)。
當審查委員先審理發明單一性,接著要求「選擇(election)」一組請求項作為審查範圍,當選擇的發明(elected)為可核准,非選擇(nonelected)的部分可以考慮重返(rejoinder),但非選擇的請求項範圍應包括前述可核准的限制條件。
"If an examiner (1) determines that the claims lack unity of invention and (2) requires election of a single invention, when all of the claims drawn to the elected invention are allowable (i.e., meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101 , 102 , 103 and 112 ), the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder. Any nonelected product claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable product claim, and any nonelected process claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable process claim, should be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04 ** . Any nonelected processes of making and/or using an allowable product should be considered for rejoinder ** . > The examiner should notify applicants of potential rejoinder of non-elected process claims by placing form paragraph 8.21.04 at the end of any lack of unity determination made between a product and a process of making the product or between a product and a process of using the product."

Ron

克服美國101法條的答辯範例

這是一件有關雲端運算的技術,雲端運算在本質上就是軟體程式的運作,至少初步印象確實就會讓審查委員發出不符美國專利法第101條(35USC101)的核駁理由。

不符101可專利標的的核駁意見,審查委員認為有關雲端運算中的計算節點、中繼點、網路連線等被視為電腦程式本身(computer program per se),當以最廣而合理的解釋時,認為相關系統僅為電腦程式所組成,電腦程式僅是一系列由電腦執行的指令,本身不是流程,不符101規定。

MPEP 2106.1描述在判斷發明是否為可專利標的(35USC101)的步驟,其中界定可專利的四種類別:
process:動作、一系列動作或步驟,比如以特定材料製作產品的步驟。
machine:具體的事物,包括部分或是特定裝置元件的組合,每一個機構裝置或特定組合後可以達成特定功能、效果。
manufacture:透過手動或機械,以材料所製作的物品,並給予新的形式(form)、特性或其組合。
composition of matter:以兩個或多個物質組成的物,使得有化學變化的結果,或是物理性的混合。
(section I摘錄)
I.   THE FOUR CATEGORIES OF STATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER

Step 1: Is the claim directed to one of the four patent-eligible subject matter categories: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? The subject matter of the claim must be directed to one of the four subject matter categories. If it is not, the claim is not eligible for patent protection and should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, for at least this reason. A summary of the four categories of invention, as they have been defined by the courts, are:
  • i. Process – an act, or a series of acts or steps. See Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 70, 175 USPQ 673, 676 (1972) ("A process is a mode of treatment of certain materials to produce a given result. It is an act,or a series of acts, performed upon the subject-matter to be transformed and reduced to a different state or thing." (emphasis added) (quoting Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 788, 24 L. Ed. 139, 1877 Dec. Comm'r Pat. 242 (1876))); NTP, Inc. v. Research in Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1316, 75 USPQ2d 1763, 1791 (Fed. Cir. 2005) ("[A] process is a series of acts." (quoting Minton v. Natl. Ass’n. of Securities Dealers, 336 F.3d 1373, 336 F.3d 1373, 1378, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2003))). See also 35 U.S.C. 100(b); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 95 USPQ2d 1001 (2010).
  • ii. Machine – a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. Burr v. Duryee, 68 U.S. (1 Wall.) 531, 570, 17 L. Ed. 650 (1863). This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267, 14 L. Ed. 683 (1854).
  • iii. Manufacture – an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by handlabor or by machinery. Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303, 308, 206 USPQ 193, 197 (1980) (emphasis added) (quoting Am. Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Brogdex Co., 283 U.S. 1, 11, 51 S. Ct. 328, 75 L. Ed. 801, 1931 (Dec. Comm'r Pat. 711 (1931))).
  • iv. Composition of matter – all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids, for example. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 308, 206 USPQ at 197.
本案為了克服不符35USC101規定的核駁理由,除了答辯上說明其中元件為實體裝置(如computing node),其達成功能也非抽象概念的效果,而具有實際技術效果。於是,修正專利範圍(同時考量專利性),明確指出computing node的工作,以及明確描述其中定義的一些角色(如broker)確實包括了有技術貢獻的硬體或足可克服101的技術特徵,這裡具有貢獻的技術特徵如broker的資料庫,因為此資料庫記載了透過程式取得的負載資訊,也是本發明配置計算資源的主要依據之一。
 

可參考台灣對軟體專利的態度:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/02/blog-post_17.html

補充:
在對35USC101或是其他國家可專利標的質疑時,主要的爭點在於請求項元件是否具有足以克服先前技術(如果審查意見包括技術審查)或其他已知技術的「可專利技術貢獻」,一般稱為STF(special technical feature),而STF也為各國判斷是否各專利範圍間具有單一性的判斷依據,包括台灣、日本、韓國、歐洲與美國專利審查時都有相關規定。

歐洲:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/03/blog-post_12.html
日本:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/11/blog-post_17.html
韓國:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/07/blog-post.html
台灣:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2012/03/blog-post_29.html
國際申請案進入美國階段時所考量:http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/05/blog-post_20.html

Ron

2015年3月3日 星期二

拋棄專利之恢復

筆記

要恢復已經拋棄的專利不是難事,只要:充分的理由與費用。

但是還是有一些限制,包括專利權不及於拋棄期間的侵權行為,對於美國專利可以參考37 CFR 1.137與37 CFR 2.66。

37 CFR 1.137 Revival of abandoned application, terminated reexamination proceeding, or lapsed patent.

已拋棄專利、已終止再審程序或是失效專利的復權:
此一章節規範了「無法避免(unavoidable)」、「非故意(unintentional)」的理由造成專利失效、何謂回覆(reply)、如何提出復權申請(request for reconsideration),包括終權聲明(terminal disclaimer)、無法復權,以及再考慮(reconsideration)等規定。

如何處理「無法避免(unavoidable)」理由?
如果申請人或專利權人"在無法避免的理由下"延遲回覆專利局而造成專利權失效,可以提出復權的請願(petition),相關請願應包括:請願文、費用,以及足以說服審查委員主管(director)的無法避免理由。並應提出終權聲明(terminal disclaimer,此意義不同於重複專利的TD)。

如何處理「非故意(unintentional)」理由?
如果申請人或專利權人"非故意"延遲回覆專利局而造成專利權失效,可以提出復權的請願(petition),請願程序應提交:請願文、費用,以及足以說服查委員主管非故意理由,必要時,審查委員可以要求提出其他證據。並應提出終權聲明。

何謂回覆(reply)?
如果美國專利申請案因為未於期限內提出答辯,申請人可以考慮提出延續申請案。在1995年6月8日當日或之後的美國正式申請案,如果因為未及時答辯而造成專利被拋棄,可以提出延續審查(1.114),隨附的費用可能是領證費(如果專利是因為未繳領證費而失效)或是公開費。

終權聲明
提出任何要求回復專利權的請願時,應隨附終權聲明與費用(1.321),藉此指出何謂終權的部分,也就是拋棄核准專利在專利失效的期間的權利(a terminal part of the term of any patent granted thereon equivalent to the period of abandonment of the application),這個期間比如:申請案失效的期間、超過申請日後20年以上的期限(針對申請案的延續案,包括再領證案)。

再考慮請求?
當接獲當局拒絕復權請願的決定後,可以在作出拒絕決定後兩個月內提出再考慮請願。

如果通知美國專利局其他國的相關申請案,或是在特定多國協議下,可能復權。


37 CFR 2.66 Revival of abandoned applications.
提出復權請願的時間應在接獲拋棄通知(notice of abandonment)後兩個月內。
即便申請人並未接獲拋棄通知,但申請人應有義務每六個月檢查專利狀態。

相關非故意、無法避免的理由比如是「未接獲USPTO通知(OA、拋棄通知、核准通知、領證通知等)」。核准通知後3年無法復權。

Ron

ATR的專利

從EPO資料庫尋得申請人為「AVIONS DE TRANSP REGIONAL(ATR,法文)」的專利申請案,以及相關專利家族:

CA2510304 (A1)
CN100509559 (C)
DE602005004702 (T2)
DK1612140 (T3)
EP1612140 (A1)
ES2300957 (T3)
FR2872327 (A1)
RU2302359 (C2)
US2005288895(A1),美案獲准為US 7,398,182


這件專利揭露一種偵測飛行器效能下降的方法,比對飛機重量、引擎理論拉力、引擎實際拉力,其中也考慮起飛前與飛行過程中的耗油量,藉此判斷出飛行器的效能是否降低;另有判斷效能是否降低的問題是飛行速度、高度、溫度等的參數比對。
(device 1, set 2, link 4, central unit 3, warning means 5, computing current weight 7, link 6, link 9, computing current drag 8, link 11, first set of comparison 10, determining degradation of performance 12, link 13, computing theoretical cruising speed 14, link 15, second set of comparison 16, link 17, link 18 )

申請時請求項範圍寫的很怪:
1. A method for detecting a degradation of performance of an aircraft,
wherein the following sequence of steps is carried out automatically and repetitively:
a) we compute at least:
a current weight of the aircraft;
on the basis of said current weight, a theoretical drag of said aircraft; and
a current drag of said aircraft;
b) we implement at least a first set of comparisons, which relates to the drag and which comprises at least one comparison between said current drag and said theoretical drag; and
c) we determine whether a degradation of performance of the aircraft exists, at least on the basis of said first set of comparisons.
最後獲准Claim 1樣貌:
1. A method for detecting aircraft performance degradation comprising:
(a) receiving the initial weight of the aircraft from an external source;
(b) computing a current weight of the aircraft based on the received initial weight;
(c) computing the drag of the aircraft based on the computed current weight;
(d) computing a theoretical drag, CXth(理論拉力), of the aircraft based on the value of the computed drag and the square value of the computed drag
(e) comparing the computed theoretical drag to a current drag of the aircraft that is computed by a different formula;
(f) generating an indication of aircraft performance degradation based on the result of the comparison; and
(g) outputting said indication.

這件專利在各國狀況不一,在美國獲准了,如果所揭露的技術能確實實施,或許,結果會不一樣。願逝者安息。

Ron