「不公開請求」案例分享

本篇為「不公開請求（Request Not to Publish）」的案例分享，不過，副標可以為：來不及主張優先權，但至少不要影響後案專利性。涉及「請求不公開」的討論。

範例：
美國申請案13/545,206，後來獲准US8693768。另一對照案為：WO2015126361。

WO2015126361資訊：
國際申請日（無優先權日）：02.18.2014
公開號：WO/2015/126361
國際申請號：PCT/US2014/016880

公開日：08.27.2015
申請人：ALINIC FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP
發明人：LAFORGIA, Lisa

13/545,206(US8693768 B1)資訊：
申請日（第一申請國）：07.10.2012
公告日：04.08.2014
專利獲准時擁有人：ALINIC FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, LP, NEW YORK

目前被授權人：Perfect Corp

發明人：LAFORGIA, Lisa

上述兩件案子有一致的揭露內容，從兩案的資訊來看，其實應該是同一個家族的專利申請案。

從申請日來看，WO2015126361的申請日已經超過美案'768申請日一年，無法主張優先權。猜測是"申請PCT時發現來不及主張優先權"，這種情況的風險是，從此PCT案衍生的後續各國申請案都可能會有專利性的問題，會被這個美案阻礙而無法獲准專利。

不過，當中有些蹊蹺。

從前案'768申請日來看，為07.10.2012，但到公告日（04.08.2014）之前卻沒有「早期公開日」，根據18個月早期公開的規則，'768應該在2014年1月左右會有公開的資訊，應該會阻礙後案WO2015126361取得專利的機會。

先看WO2015126361的檢索報告（International Search Report），並沒有'768的蹤影：


從美國專利局PAIR來查為何沒有提供公開，而延遲三個月公告獲准專利？

根據13/545,206的PAIR資訊，此案並沒有遭遇核駁意見，並已經在其申請日後18月之前獲准專利（12-02-2013），之後在02-20-2014提出「Rescind Nonpublication Request for Pre Grant Pub（撤銷不公開請求）」，之後USPTO在03-06-2014發出「Notice of New or Revised Publication Date（修改公開/公告日通知）」。



事實上，本案申請時（07-10-2012）在「Application Data Sheet」中提出「Request Not to Publish」（不公開請求），使得本案可以在獲准不公開，或是不實施早期公開。


Rescind Nonpublication Request for Pre Grant Pub
請求撤銷之前不公開請求。其中要求申請人在日後有國外申請案時，應通知USPTO，且應在國外申請案後45天內通知。如果沒有及時通知，本申請案將被拋棄。


Notice of New or Revised Publication Date（撤銷不公開請求，修正後公開日為06/12/2014）


根據以上資料，較早申請案在美國提出申請，並請求「不公開」，理由是不會在他國提出申請，之後在核准後又「撤銷不公開的請求」，且不久之後，申請人提出PCT申請案。...這可能是一種「挽救」，也是一種「申請策略」。

[法條]
本案申請時提出延遲公開的請求為依據「35 U.S.C. §122 (b)(2)(B)(i)」

If an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication of applications 18 months after filing, the application shall not be published as provided in paragraph (1).

如果提出申請案，確認其中發明不會申請其他國家，或是提出任何多語國際協議下的申請案，可以提出不要早期18個月公開的請求。

35 U.S.C. §122 (b)(2)(B)(iii)

An applicant who has made a request under clause (i) but who subsequently files, in a foreign country or under a multilateral international agreement specified in clause (i), an application directed to the invention disclosed in the application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, shall notify the Director of such filing not later than 45 days after the date of the filing of such foreign or international application. A failure of the applicant to provide such notice within the prescribed period shall result in the application being regarded as abandoned.

提出不公開請求的申請人，如果日後要提出國外申請案，應在申請日後45天內通知USPTO，如果沒有通知，本申請案將被視為拋棄。

35 U.S.C. 122 CONFIDENTIAL STATUS OF APPLICATIONS; PUBLICATION OF PATENT APPLICATIONS.

(b) PUBLICATION.—

• (1) IN GENERAL.—
  • (A) Subject to paragraph (2), each application for a patent shall be published, in accordance with procedures determined by the Director, promptly after the expiration of a period of 18 months from the earliest filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title. At the request of the applicant, an application may be published earlier than the end of such 18-month period.
  • (B) No information concerning published patent applications shall be made available to the public except as the Director determines.
  • (C) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a determination by the Director to release or not to release information concerning a published patent application shall be final and nonreviewable.
• (2) EXCEPTIONS.—
  • (A) An application shall not be published if that application is—
    • (i) no longer pending;
    • (ii) subject to a secrecy order under section 181 ;
    • (iii) a provisional application filed under section 111(b); or
    • (iv) an application for a design patent filed under chapter 16.
  • (B)
    • (i) If an applicant makes a request upon filing, certifying that the invention disclosed in the application has not and will not be the subject of an application filed in another country, or under a multilateral international agreement, that requires publication of applications 18 months after filing, the application shall not be published as provided in paragraph (1).
    • (ii) An applicant may rescind a request made under clause (i) at any time.
    • (iii) An applicant who has made a request under clause (i) but who subsequently files, in a foreign country or under a multilateral international agreement specified in clause (i), an application directed to the invention disclosed in the application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, shall notify the Director of such filing not later than 45 days after the date of the filing of such foreign or international application. A failure of the applicant to provide such notice within the prescribed period shall result in the application being regarded as abandoned.
    • (iv) If an applicant rescinds a request made under clause (i) or notifies the Director that an application was filed in a foreign country or under a multilateral international agreement specified in clause (i), the application shall be published in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) on or as soon as is practical after the date that is specified in clause (i).
    • (v) If an applicant has filed applications in one or more foreign countries, directly or through a multilateral international agreement, and such foreign filed applications corresponding to an application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office or the description of the invention in such foreign filed applications is less extensive than the application or description of the invention in the application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office, the applicant may submit a redacted copy of the application filed in the Patent and Trademark Office eliminating any part or description of the invention in such application that is not also contained in any of the corresponding applications filed in a foreign country. The Director may only publish the redacted copy of the application unless the redacted copy of the application is not received within 16 months after the earliest effective filing date for which a benefit is sought under this title. The provisions of section 154(d) shall not apply to a claim if the description of the invention published in the redacted application filed under this clause with respect to the claim does not enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the subject matter of the claim.

my two cents:
本案申請人在專利申請時提出「不早期公開請求」，理由是不會在別國或是PCT提出申請，但是...似乎在獲准專利時，決定要申請PCT案，即要求撤銷延遲公開/公告的請求，修改了公開/公告日。（編按，雖然看似合法，申請人在獲准前確實沒有申請他國專利，但在獲准後改變心意，但是也失去了主張優先權的權利，不過，之後仍提出PCT案，這似乎有點怪怪的）

確實會發生「來不及主張優先權」的情況，甚至可能會在前案申請日後18月後才想到佈局其他國家的，這時一般的反應是「將後申請案改一改」，避免被自己的前案打到（美國不適用），這時，本篇請求「Rescind Nonpublication Request for Pre Grant」的作法雖不意外，仍可以提供有此困擾的申請人參考。

感謝同事Liu提供案例。
Ron

新加坡專利實務筆記

新加坡專利申請筆記（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2014/02/blog-post_13.html）

此篇描述大致的新加坡發明專利申請程序：

Step 1: Application（申請）
Step 2: Preliminary Examination（初步審查、形式審查）
Step 3: Publication（公開）
Step 4: Search and examination（檢索與審查）

Step 5: Grant（核准）

進一步地： (1)申請：申請費與專利說明書（摘要、背景技術、實施方式、至少一項權利範圍與圖式）。權利範圍兩段式寫法。
(2)初步審查（preliminary examination）（形式審查）。
(3)申請日（或優先權日）後13個月內提出檢索要求（request for search report）。
(4)檢索與審查意見提出後2個月內繳費以提出補充檢索報告（supplementary search report）的要求。
(5)申請案型式：
(a)全本地方案（請求檢索而後審查程序（search-then-examination），或是組合檢索與審查的程序（search-and-examination））
(b)全國外方案（申請人提供對應本地申請案的國際申請案檢索與審查報告）
(c)組合式方案（申請人提出根據對應本地申請案的國際申請案檢索報告的審查請求）

實務筆記：

基於以上申請概要，方案之一是，申請人會在實際審查之前接獲檢索報告（Search Report），並會附帶一初步意見（Written Opinion）。

這時，申請人可以選擇是否要回應此檢索報告，這並非強制回應，如果這次不回應，相同的審查意見會在下次正式審查意見（Examination Report）重發一次。

提出發明申請後，新加坡智慧局發出檢索報告以及意見（Written Opinion）：

初步意見會論述申請案發明是否具備產業利用性（industrial applicability，專利法第16條）、新穎性（Novelty，專利法第14條）與進步性（Inventive Step，專利法第15條）：


依照申請案在國外的檢索、審查意見、費用等考量，新加坡專利局提出以下四種檢索與審查方案（https://www.ipos.gov.sg/protecting-your-ideas/patent/application-process/domestic-route）：


這四種方案可以依照實際需求選擇，主要是「時間」因素，而且各有優缺點：

方案一：13個月內提出檢索報告，36個月內審查，分兩階段，費用最貴，好處是可以根據審查報告決定是否要繼續審查。
方案二：36個月內檢索與審查，費用不高，好處是考量時間長與費用低。
方案三：36個月內審查，這適用有國外的檢索報告，費用低。
方案四：54個月補充審查，適用已經有國外檢索與審查結果的申請案，費用是0，應該是用在國外已經是核准的案子上。

新加坡專利法：
https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/484465

Examination Guidelines forPatent Applications at IPOS
https://www.ipos.gov.sg/docs/default-source/resources-library/patents/infopacks/examination-guidelines-for-patent-applications-at-ipos_2017-apr.pdf

資料來源：https://www.ipos.gov.sg/understanding-innovation-ip/patent

Ron

歐洲實際審查與退費筆記

筆記

審查與答辯，源自EPC ART.94(3)規定，當審查意見顯示專利申請案並未能核准專利，歐洲審查部門應要求申請人提出他的意見，並依照規定修正專利申請案。

EPC Rule 71規範實際審查的細節。

(1)歐洲審查單位應要求申請人在期限內修正任何缺陷與說明書、申請專利範圍與圖式。
(2)歐洲審查單位應提出合理的陳述，包括適當與全部的拒絕准予專利的理由。
(3)在歐洲審查單位核准專利前，應通知申請人。應要求申請人繳付核准、公告與申請專利範圍翻譯（另兩個官方語言，官方語言為英文、德文與法文）費用。
(4)如果歐洲專利申請案超過15項專利範圍，歐洲審查意見應要求申請人繳付第16項之後的請求項審查費用。
(5)當申請人繳付核准、公告與另兩個官方語言的費用，即視為同意相關內容與個人資料。
(6)若申請人請求合理的修正，歐洲審查部門同意修正後應提出新的審查意見。
(7)如果未繳付核准、公告與請求項費用，或是另兩個語言的翻譯沒有及時提交，申請案將被視為撤回。


Guidelines for Examination Part A, Chapter VI(2) 2.5 
退還審查費用條件（EPC Article 11）：

(i)審查費用（examination fee）全額退費：如果歐洲專利申請案撤銷、被拒絕或是在實際審查"開始前"撤回（if the European patent application is withdrawn, refused or deemed to be withdrawn before substantive examination has begun），可以全額退回審查費用；
(ii)審查費用退一半：如果歐洲專利申請案在實際審查已經"開始後"撤回，但在回應第一次審查意見的時間過期之前，或是在發出審查意見之前，可以退一半審查費用。

上述第(i)點適用於全部2016年7月1日當日或之後被撤回或拒絕的歐洲專利申請案。
上述第(ii)點適用在2016年11月1日當日或之後實際審查已經開始的全部歐洲專利申請案。

對於在2016年11月1日之前已經進入實際審查的歐洲申請案來說，無法退費。

p.s. 要通過詢問(EPO Form 2095)可知申請案是否已經開始實際審查。

[法條]
---------------------------------

Article 94 Examination of the European patent application

(1) The European Patent Office shall, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations, examine on request whether the European patent application and the invention to which it relates meet the requirements of this Convention. The request shall not be deemed to be filed until the examination fee has been paid.

(2) If no request for examination has been made in due time, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.

(3) If the examination reveals that the application or the invention to which it relates does not meet the requirements of this Convention, the Examining Division shall invite the applicant, as often as necessary, to file his observations and, subject to Article 123, paragraph 1, to amend the application.

(4) If the applicant fails to reply in due time to any communication from the Examining Division, the application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.


---------------------------------

Rule 71 Examination procedure

(1) In any communication under Article 94, paragraph 3, the Examining Division shall, where appropriate, invite the applicant to correct any deficiencies noted and to amend the description, claims and drawings within a period to be specified.

(2) Any communication under Article 94, paragraph 3, shall contain a reasoned statement covering, where appropriate, all the grounds against the grant of the European patent.

(3) Before the Examining Division decides to grant the European patent, it shall inform the applicant of the text in which it intends to grant it and of the related bibliographic data. In this communication the Examining Division shall invite the applicant to pay the fee for grant and publishing and to file a translation of the claims in the two official languages of the European Patent Office other than the language of the proceedings within four months.

(4) If the European patent application in the text intended for grant comprises more than fifteen claims, the Examining Division shall invite the applicant to pay claims fees in respect of the sixteenth and each subsequent claim within the period under paragraph 3 unless the said fees have already been paid under Rule 45 or Rule 162.

(5) If the applicant, within the period laid down in paragraph 3, pays the fees under paragraph 3 and, where applicable, paragraph 4 and files the translations under paragraph 3, he shall be deemed to have approved the text communicated to him under paragraph 3 and verified the bibliographic data.

(6) If the applicant, within the period under paragraph 3, requests reasoned amendments or corrections to the communicated text or keeps to the latest text submitted by him, the Examining Division shall issue a new communication under paragraph 3 if it gives its consent; otherwise it shall resume the examination proceedings.

(7) If the fee for grant and publishing or the claims fees are not paid in due time, or if the translations are not filed in due time, the European patent application shall be deemed to be withdrawn.


---------------------------------

Guidelines for Examination Part A, Chapter VI(2)

2.5 Refund of examination fee 

The examination fee is refunded:
(i) in full if the European patent application is withdrawn, refused or deemed to be withdrawn before substantive examination has begun (Art. 11(a) RFees); or
(ii) at a rate of 50% if the European patent application is withdrawn after substantive examination has begun and 
– before expiry of the time limit for replying to the first invitation under Art. 94(3) issued by the examining division proper or,
– if no such invitation has been issued, before the date of the communication under Rule 71(3) (Art. 11(b) RFees).

As concerns (i) above, this applies to all European patent applications which are withdrawn, refused or deemed to be withdrawn on or after 1 July 2016. As concerns (ii) above, this applies to all European patent applications for which substantive examination began on or after 1 November 2016 (see the Decision of the Administrative Council of 29 June 2016, OJ EPO 2016, A48). For all applications for which substantive examination began before that date, Art. 11 RFees as in force before 1 November 2016 continues to apply, which means that there will be no refund if the application is withdrawn, refused or deemed to be withdrawn at this stage of proceedings.

Communications under Art. 94(3) "issued by the examining division proper" (see also C‑III, 4) are all communications indicating that the application does not meet the requirements of the EPC and referring to deemed withdrawal under Art. 94(4) in case the deficiencies are not duly remedied. These include the following: invitations under Rule 137(4), minutes of consultations by phone or in person, accompanied by an invitation to remedy deficiencies, communications relating to the ‘completely contained' criterion pursuant to Rule 56(3), or summons to oral proceedings pursuant to Rule 115(1) to which a communication complying with the requirements of Art. 94(3) and Rule 71(1) is annexed. In contrast, communications addressing purely formal deficiencies and issued by formalities officers as part of the duties entrusted to them, even if issued on the basis of Art. 94(3), do not constitute communications under Art. 94(3) "issued by the examining division proper". Likewise, communications issued by the examining division itself on some other legal basis, such as Rule 164(2)(a), Rule 53(3) or Art. 124, have no bearing on the period for a withdrawal qualifying for the 50% refund (see the Notice from the EPO dated 30 June 2016, OJ EPO 2016, A49).


An applicant unsure whether substantive examination has begun and wanting to withdraw the application only if he will receive the 100% refund may make withdrawal contingent upon the refund ("conditional" withdrawal). The date of the start of examination (C‑IV, 7.1) is indicated by means of EPO Form 2095 in the public part of the dossier and is thus open to file inspection in the European Patent Register after publication of the patent application. If EPO Form 2095 is not on file, substantive examination is deemed to have started on the date on which the first communication from the examining division proper is issued (e.g. a communication under Art. 94(3), Rule 71(3) or any other legal basis as mentioned above). Before publication, the EPO will provide the applicant with the relevant information upon request, or this information can be accessed electronically via the My Files service. For more details see OJ EPO 2013, 153.

---------------------------------
EPC Article 11 Refund of examination fee

The examination fee provided for in Article 94, paragraph 1, of the Convention shall be refunded:
(a) in full if the European patent application is withdrawn, refused or deemed to be withdrawn before the substantive examination has begun;
(b) at a rate of 50% if the European patent application is withdrawn after substantive examination has begun and
- before expiry of the time limit for replying to the first invitation under Article 94, paragraph 3, of the Convention issued by the Examining Division proper or,
- if no such invitation has been issued by the Examining Division, before the date of the communication under Rule 71, paragraph 3, of the Convention.

感謝同事Jennifer提供資訊。

Ron

要有足夠的細節才有可能證明具備inventive concept - Secured Mail Solutions v. Universal Wilde (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Secured Mail Solutions, LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017)

案件資訊：
原告/上訴人/專利權人：SECURED MAIL SOLUTIONS LLC
被告/被上訴人：UNIVERSAL WILDE, INC.
系爭專利：
U.S. Patent Nos. 7,814,032, 7,818,268, and 8,073,787 are the “Intelligent Mail Barcode” patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,260,629 and 8,429,093 are the “QR Code” patents. U.S. Patent Nos. 8,910,860 and 9,105,002 are the “Personalized URL” patents.
判決日：October 16, 2017

本案緣起原告/專利權人Secured Mail Solutions LLC對地方法院同意以不符101規定議題的請願的決定（表示地院判決專利不具專利適格性）提出上訴。

系爭專利分別關於電子郵件認證、QR碼與個人化URL的技術，以'032為例，在認證程序中，通過電子郵件傳送認證資料，讓接收端通過信件內確認的動作達到身份認證的目的。（編按，這常見於利用電子郵件註冊特定網路服務的認證方式）

這些系爭專利各有專利範圍，如'032的Claim 1揭示使用單一條碼認證實體信件來信者的方法，'093與'002則是有關提供電子內容給郵件接收者的技術，前者以QR Code提供內容，後者則應用了個人化URL。

'032的Claim 1. A method for using a single barcode to verify the authenticity of and identify a sender of a physical mail object that is being sent from said sender to a recipient via a mail carrier, comprising:

a sender of a physical mail object generating a unique identifier, wherein said unique identifier comprises a numeric value, can be used by said sender to identify said physical mail object, and is distinguishable from a second unique identifier that can be used by said sender to identify a second physical mail object that is being sent from said sender to said recipient via said mail carrier;

encoding at least said unique identifier, sender data and recipient data into a single barcode, wherein said sender data identifies said sender of said physical mail object and said recipient data identifies a recipient of said physical mail object;

storing at least a portion of said encoded data in a database, said portion comprising at least said unique identifier, said sender data and said recipient data;

printing said single barcode on said physical mail object;

submitting said physical mail object to a postal carrier;

scanning by a scanner said single barcode to acquire said encoded data; and

comparing by a computer at least a portion of said encoded data to data stored in said database to verify the authenticity of said physical mail object, wherein said at least a portion of said encoded data comprises at least said unique identifier, said sender data and said recipient data and can be used by said postal carrier to identify said sender of said physical mail object.

'093的Claim 1. A method for providing electronic data to a recipient of a mail object, comprising:

Generating, by a processor, a barcode for a mail object, said barcode including at least a first set of mail data, said first set of mail data including data corresponding to said recipient of said mail object;

affixing said barcode to said mail object;

submitting said mail object to a mail carrier for delivery to said recipient of said mail object;

receiving said first set of mail data, including data corresponding to said recipient of said mail object, from a reception device of said recipient via a network;

providing said electronic data to said reception device via said network in response to receiving said first set of mail data, said electronic data including a content of said mail object;

wherein said reception device displays said electronic data to a recipient of said mail object by displaying said electronic data on a screen of said reception device.

'002的Claim 1. A method for providing electronic data to a recipient of a mail object, comprising:

using an output device to affix a single set of mail ID data to said mail object, said single set of mail ID data including at least recipient data, said recipient data comprising a personalized network address associated with said recipient of said mail object;

submitting said mail object to a mail carrier for delivery to said recipient of said mail object;

receiving said recipient data from a reception device of said recipient via a network; and

providing by at least one processor said electronic data to said reception device via said network in response to receiving said recipient data, said electronic data comprising a sender's web page that identifies said recipient of said mail object and includes data corresponding to a content of said mail object;

wherein said electronic data is configured to be displayed to said recipient via a web browser on a display of said reception device.

看來這些應用在信件的電腦技術都會面對35 U.S.C. § 101議題，自然也是應用TWO-STEP測試，系爭專利發明先被認定為抽象概念(step 2A)，因此考量專利範圍中是否具有足以轉換抽象概念為可專利的應用的進步特徵（inventive concept）(step 2B)。

發明是否符合35 U.S.C. § 101規定的可專利標的，邏輯大概是：
--------------------
(1)是否為新與有用的流程、機器、製程或物質成份？
(2)是否落於法定例外的標的：自然律、自然現象與抽象概念？
(3)依據Alice判例，採用two-step檢測。
發明是否涉及法定例外？
如果不是，就通過two-step檢測。
如果是，進一步判斷專利範圍是否包括足以將不可專利的發明轉換為可專利應用的進步特徵（inventive concept）？（"whether the claims contain an “inventive concept” sufficient to “transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.”"）

補充：USPTO於年初新版指導方針將step 2A分為兩個步驟：
(1) 是否申請專利範圍界定的發明引述法定例外？其中，抽象概念可以分為：數學概念（mathematical concepts）、一些組織人類行為的方法（certain methods of organizing human activity）以及心智活動（mental processes）等。

(2) 如果法定例外的事項可以整合到實際的應用（integrated into a practical application）上，引述了法定例外的相關申請專利範圍不算涉及（not directed to）法定例外。

- USPTO的2019開年禮之一 - 適格性指導方針（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/01/uspto2019.html）
--------------------

Alice Step One

根據地方法院對本案的意見是，全部系爭專利都是有關資訊標記的技術，涉及抽象概念。在專利權人Secured Mail上訴意見中，搬出Enfish案例，認為系爭專利是改善電腦技術的發明，且當年CAFC在Enfish的意見中還認為地方法院對於抽象概念的評斷標準太高。

不過，本案中，CAFC認為地院判決系爭專利為抽象概念，為101規定的法定例外，這是合理普遍的標準（a reasonably high level of generality）。並且，法院也澄清，Enfish案涉及電腦本身技術的改善（有關電腦記憶體中資料管理），卻不是利用電腦技術實現其他經濟活動或是如本案資訊標識的技術類型。

- 參考報導：改善電腦技術的軟體方法具有可專利性？ - Enfish LLC v Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2016) （http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/05/enfish-llc-v-microsoft-fed-cir-2016.html）

Alice Step Two

若專利無疑地涉及抽象概念，即討論下一步，判斷專利是否轉換抽象概念為可專利應用。"In step two, we consider the elements of the claims to determine whether they transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea."

- 參考報導：應用習知裝置執行原本的工作不會轉換抽象為可專利的發明 - Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo Bank (CAFC 2014)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/contect-extraction-v-wells-fargo-bank.html）

十分明確地，這個判斷步驟是要找專利範圍中是否具備可以實質超越抽象概念本身的「inventive concept（進步特徵/進步概念）」？

- 參考報導：關於編解碼的可專利性 - Recognicorp v. Nintendo (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/01/recognicorp-v-nintendo-fed-cir-2017.html）

（此案提到："地院認為專利範圍為演算法本身，或是明顯為一般解決方案的活動而已（pre-solution activity and post-solution activity），並沒有足以讓抽象概念轉換為可專利標的的進步特徵/發明概念（inventive concept）。但CAFC提醒：不是因為引述了數學方法就會直接判斷沒有inventive concept，這應該是step 2A的討論，本案是因為專利範圍中的數學方法僅是將資料轉換成另一形式的資料。"）

因此，議題成為在專利範圍中是否可以找到具備「inventive concept」的證據？

這裡很明確地說，僅引述一般電腦或是加入"apply it with a computer"語句，不能轉換抽象概念為可專利發明。


對於barcode專利：
根據專利權人Secured Mail的意見，也如法院知道的，系爭專利在寄件者端產生條碼並附加在信件上為系爭專利發明的核心，條碼中記載了識別符、寄件者資料、接收者資料以及傳遞方法等（可能形成inventive concept的條件），但法院認為，專利範圍的描述並沒有解釋如何產生這些資訊，甚至要傳遞這些資訊也不用轉成條碼，使得判斷從專利範圍無法得出哪些特徵為「inventive concept」（"The claim language does not provide any specific showing of what is inventive about the identifier or about the technology used to generate and process it."）。

對於QR Code與personalized URL專利：
因為涉及網路技術，Secured Mail引用案例DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels. com，認為，以特定方式自動從多個來源產生網頁，以解決網路技術的問題，為可專利標的！



- 參考報導：商業方法可專利性？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）

CAFC的回應是，系爭專利缺乏技術細節，找不到以特定方法解決特定問題的技術特徵，認為其中技術為已知與習知，並採用一般通訊技術，因此並未具備inventive concept。

CAFC結論：

"We see no inventive concept that transforms the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea."



CAFC判決文：http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/16-1728.Opinion.10-12-2017.1.PDF（備份：https://app.box.com/s/w27nv8udachbk1667w63uynzdz44o7hr）

my two cents:
要克服那麼多的101爭議與阻礙，專利範圍（與說明書）的撰寫變得是最根本的問題，看來，避免發明僅是簡單利用電腦，專利範圍要有具備inventive concept的證據，要有特定可解決特定問題的方法的描述，就是專利範圍（與其說明書）要有足夠的細節，克服101問題的機會才會比較大！

本部落格算是盡量嚴密跟隨與101有關的議題，幾乎判決中提到的引用前例都可在本部落格中找到，然而101議題雖原則與邏輯不變，也可能常常是老梗常談，但隨時有新增變化（即便很微小），算是專利這個領域最有趣的議題之一：https://enpan.blogspot.com/search/label/101。

看過很多案例引用Enfish案，但要注意的是，這是適用「電腦本身技術的改善」，不適用「應用電腦實現的技術」。

註記：
這件事證明我的記憶力很淺，本案已經在今年2月分析與報導過，但現在（April 30, 2019）才發現，這個案例竟然研究兩次，還沒有意識到。

沒有足夠的細節證明具有inventive concept - Secured Mail Solutions v. Universal Wilde (Fed. Cir. 2017)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/02/secured-mail-solutions-v-universal_11.html）

Ron

浪費PTAB時間的IPR案會被拒絕啟始 - Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P.(PTAB 2018)

本案例「Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., Case IPR2018-00923 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018)」被USPTO列為前例（precedential），議題涉及IPR異議程序中，當請願人僅證明了被挑戰20項專利範圍中的2項有可能被撤銷時，拒絕啟始本案審理。



案件資訊：
請願人：CHEVRON ORONITE COMPANY LLC
專利權人：INFINEUM USA L.P.
系爭專利：US6,723,685
IPR編號：IPR2018-00923

系爭專利如Claim 1 描述，為一種潤滑油成份，主要成份為(a)黏度係數至少95的潤滑油；(b)鈣洗滌劑；(c)油溶性鉬化合物；(d)有機無灰無氮摩擦改進劑；以及(e)金屬二烴基二硫代磷酸鹽化合物，最後界定各種成份的濃度。

1. A lubricating oil composition comprising:

a) an oil of lubricating viscosity having a viscosity index of at least 95;

b) at least one calcium detergent;

c) at least one oil soluble molybdenum compound;

d) at least one organic ashless nitrogen-free friction modifier; and

e) at least one metal dihydrocarbyl dithiophosphate compound, wherein said composition is substantially free of ashless aminic friction modifiers, has a Noack volatility of about 15 wt. % or less, from about 0.05 to 0.6 wt. % calcium from the calcium detergent, molybdenum in an amount of from about 10 ppm to about 350 ppm from the molybdenum compound, and phosphorus from the metal dihydrocarbyl dithiophosphate compound in an amount up to about 0.1 wt. %.

本案緣起Chevron對系爭專利的Claims 1~20提起IPR異議程序，並專利權人初步回應後，PTAB拒絕啟始本案，討論如下。

異議人Chevron提出系爭專利為顯而易見的證據：Waddoups (US 6,074,993)、Walker (WO 99/60080)，以及Hertz (Daniel L. Hertz, Jr.論文)。

在解釋專利範圍時，由於系爭專利Claim 1中描述的成份都以「at least one」描述，其中涵蓋了「多個」的範圍，因此所描述的成份濃度範圍應該是指所有成份的濃度範圍。（編按，這裡證實"at least one"的寫法的好處之一，就是解釋上確實包括單個或多個，而在此前述基礎下，後續描述的成份內容也都涵蓋單個或多個。）

根據三件先前技術揭示內容，根據PTAB分析中表示的意見，可以看出，第一，要挑戰這些專利範圍中界定的成份範圍，並充分地證明相關領域一般技術人員根據先前技術具有達成其中成份的動機，是十分困難的事。



第二，要證明系爭專利範圍中化學成份的各種可能性，也是十分困難的。



基於這兩個判斷，PTAB認為異議人並未證明系爭專利的Claim 1不具非顯而易見性的可能性。

"Thus, Petitioner has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to independent claim 1 of the ’685 patent."

接著，對於後續依附項，PTAB認為異議人也沒有證明撤銷claims 2 and 5–20的可能性。

特別的是，系爭專利Claims 3, 4為進一步限縮Claim 1中「at least one calcium detergent」的範圍，PTAB反倒是認為異議人已經充分地證明先前技術涵蓋了這兩項附屬項的成份範圍。

3. The composition according to claim 1, wherein said calcium detergent is an overbased calcium sulfonate.


4. The composition according to claim 3, wherein said overbased calcium sulfonate has a total base number of between about 150 to 450.

這樣看來，至少有兩項專利範圍有被挑戰成功的可能，是否就應該要啟始IPR審理程序。

根據此件被標註為案例的決定，可知，美國專利局擁有是否啟始IPR程序的決定的權力，如SAS Inst.案，這是很有名爭辯是否要對所有被挑戰的專利範圍作出最終IPR決定的案例。

- PTAB應對所有提起IPR的請求項作出最終決定 - SAS Institute v. Lee (Supreme Court 2017)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2018/04/ptabipr-sas-institute-v-lee-supreme.html）

- PTAB僅需對啟始審理的請求項作出最終決定 - SAS v ComplementSoft (Fed. Cir. 2016)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/11/sas-v-complementsoft-fed-cir-2016.html）

可知，PTAB有很大的決策權力，包括是否啟始IPR程序，但又應對所有專利範圍作出最終決定，使得....PTAB不甘願啟始僅可能對少數專利範圍證明專利無效的IPR案。涉及35 U.S.C. § 314(a)的規定：

35 U.S. Code § 314 - Institution of inter partes review

(a)Threshold.—

The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.

對於本案，PTAB認為，因為他們被規定要對所有被挑戰的專利範圍作出最終決定，此案共20項範圍，本案僅有可能有兩項附屬項被判為不具非顯而易見性，對PTAB來說是浪費時間與資源，拒絕啟始。



my two cents:
因為IPR程序主要分為啟始程序與實質審查程序，從本案可知，是否啟始專利異議審查，異議人至少需要在第一階段證明有可能撤銷專利的可能性，這個可能性不能太低，項次比例也不能太低。

進一步想，如果應該是要盡量降低不能異議成功的機率，那就要放棄沒有把握（或機率低）撤銷專利的專利請求項。

本案特別的是，由於「獨立請求項」的多樣性讓PTAB無法判斷先前技術已經涵蓋其中成份（至少可能性低），反而是界定較為小的「附屬請求項」，就有比較大不具非顯而易見性的可能！

這樣，其實不能說違反一般認為「獨立項有效」，其「附屬項」也應有效的慣性，因為這還是在「啟始institution」階段，僅討論到「撤銷的可能性」！不過，有待商榷。

我猜，異議人若繼續對此議題上述，又會引起憲法保障權益的爭議。

資料來源：
USPTO的Precedential and informative decisions

Chevron Oronite Co. LLC v. Infineum USA L.P., Case IPR2018-00923 (PTAB Nov. 7, 2018)決定：https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Chevron-Oronite-Co.-v.-Infineum-USA-IPR2018-00923-%28Paper-9%29.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/arvz3eevv7gg4yjs0vjc2fgz4pgnfvnx）

補充：
另一類似議題的案件：
Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., Case IPR2018-01310 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019)

This decision denies institution under § 314(a) where the petitioner demonstrates a reasonable likelihood of prevailing only as to two claims out of 23 claims challenged and only as to one of four asserted grounds of patentability.



Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., Case IPR2018-01310 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019)
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Deeper-UAB-v.-Vexilar-Inc.-IPR2018-01310-%28Paper-7%29-%28002%29.pdf

Ron

副詞子句的效力（特別包括附帶條件的專利範圍討論） - MPEP 2111.04

再探副詞子句，根據"http://www.taiwantestcentral.com/Grammar/Title.aspx?ID=321"定義，副詞子句是以從屬連接詞所引導的從屬子句，當副詞使用，主要是來修飾主要子句的動詞、副詞、或形容詞，說明與時間 (when, after, since, until)、地方 (where)、目的 (so that, in order that, lest, in case)、條件 (if, as long as, unless)、原因 (because, as, so … that)、結果 (now that)、讓步 (whether, wherever, whenever) 、情態 (as, as if) 的關係。

過去曾經報導：
連接副詞的效力 - MPEP 2111.04（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2017/05/mpep-211104.html）



MPEP 2111.04 “Adapted to,” “Adapted for,” “Wherein,” “Whereby,” and Contingent Clauses

以下整理出一些解釋這些副詞子句的原則：

MPEP 2111.04規範各種請求項用語產生限制專利範圍的效力，特別提到「"ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"」等用語，這些都是一種「選擇式」的用語（optional），不會用來限定在特定步驟或結構。（原則一："adapted, wherein, whereby"為選擇式用語，非限制條件）

然而，這裡還是說明，是否這些用語用於限制專利範圍，端賴事實而定。根據案例Griffin v. Bertina (Fed. Cir. 2002)，當"wherein"子句在流程專利（process）中給予步驟的意義與目的時，wherein的描述就會成為限制條件！（原則二：如果賦予意義，"wherein"子句會成為限制條件）

再參考In re Giannelli (Fed. Cir. 2014)案，當專利說明書對"adapted to"有明確的限縮意思，"adapted to"子句將用於限制專利範圍（該案是機器）。（原則三：若說明書有明確的限縮，"adapted to"子句也會是限制）

參考Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)案，當"whereby"子句描述涉及專利性的重要條件，不能被忽視，而會實質改變發明的要件。（原則四：如果"whereby"描述重要技術，不能被忽視）

但是，法院還是提到，若僅是表達流程步驟的「預期的結果（intended result）」，在方法專利中的"whereby"子句沒有比重（not given weight）。（原則五：如果僅表達預期的結果，"whereby"子句不是衡量專利性的條件）

本條MPEP後半段討論CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS（附帶限制，編按，就是有條件式的專利範圍）：

方法專利：
在最廣而合理的解釋原則下，在方法專利中，專利範圍中的"附帶限制"要求僅有"必須執行的步驟"，而沒有包括"沒有需要"被執行的步驟，也就是可能涵蓋沒有符合任一條件（conditions precedent）的範圍（更廣、過廣？）。

（重要）（若看來怪怪的，就看範例：在一方法中，若第一條件發生，執行step A，若第二條件，執行step B。如果發明沒有第一或第二條件（兩者其中之一）即可實現，最廣而合理解釋專利範圍時，就沒有一定有step A或B。因此，使用條件式的專利範圍時，可能在某個條件成立時發明就可實現，在最廣的解釋下，其符合某一條件執行的步驟都不算專利範圍的限制。

反之，當發明要求第一條件的發生，最廣而合理的範圍就會包括step A；如果發明同時需要第一與第二條件的發生，其最廣而合理的範圍則都會包括step A與B。）（原則六：如果採用條件式界定專利範圍，若發明在任一條件就可實現，最廣的解釋就不會包括任一條件符合下的步驟）

系統專利：
對於具有執行特定功能的結構的系統專利範圍，其中僅在有一條件符合時才會發生，其最廣而合理的解釋即包括執行特定功能的結構。

（重要）因為系統必須具備結構，不論是否有任一條件符合以及有功能被執行，此系統專利範圍並不同於方法專利的解釋。

這裡提到PTAB案例Ex parte Schulhauser，可參考當有條件符合而流程結束，就以此為最廣專利範圍 - Ex parte Schulhauser (PTAB 2013-007847)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/10/ex-parte-schulhauser-ptab-2013-007847.html）。

（重要）此案討論到「附帶限制」的專利範圍，而且也包括了方法與系統，PTAB在最廣與合理解釋原則下，認為，若方法專利中有條件不符合，就不執行特定步驟，專利範圍不會包括這個條件下的步驟；在具有執行某一功能的結構特的系統專利中，如果需要有一條件符合才會發生特定這個功能，系統仍會包括這個結構特徵。（原則七：以系統專利而言，當其中包括在某一條件符合才執行特定功能的結構特徵，無論如何，系統範圍仍會包括這個結構特徵）（編按，因為無論條件是否符合，這個結構特徵都在）

Ron

IPR復審中提出新證據需充分理由 - Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019)

本篇「Huawei Device Co., Ltd. v. Optis Cellular Technology, LLC (PTAB Jan. 8, 2019)」決定被USPTO標記為案例（precedential），主要議題為在IPR決定後中提出復審附帶的新證據需要充分理由。



案件資訊：
IPR請願人：HUAWEI DEVICE CO., LTD.
專利權人：OPTIS CELLULAR TECHNOLOGY, LLC
系爭專利：US8,437,293
IPR案：IPR2018-00816

華為對系爭專利'293提出IPR異議，經PTAB作出不啟始決定（deny institution of IPR of claims 1–4, 10– 15, and 19–23）後，華為提出復審請求（request for rehearing），理由有二：(1)PTAB誤解且忽略解釋專利範圍中用語"scheduling request"的證據；(2)PTAB誤解IPR請願書中主張先前技術如何教示系爭專利中"second SR"為單一位元信息的解釋。

根據華為的理由，PTAB認為沒有理由修改不啟始決定，駁回復審請求。

在復審請求中，若要推翻PTAB的不啟始決定，需要有充分的理由證明這個決定是錯的。（37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)）。

（重要）復審中，PTAB會再查看不啟始決定是否有濫用裁量權（abuse of discretion）的問題，所謂濫用裁量權，需要證明(1)PTAB決定錯誤解釋法條、(2)事實發現不被實質證據所支持，或是(3)衡量相關因素造成不合理判決。（37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c)）。

[法條]

37 CFR § 42.71 - Decision on petitions or motions.

(a)Order of consideration. The Board may take up petitions or motions for decisions in any order, may grant, deny, or dismiss any petition or motion, and may enter any appropriate order.

(b)Interlocutory decisions. A decision on a motion without a judgment is not final for the purposes of judicial review. If a decision is not a panel decision, the party may request that a panel rehear the decision. When rehearing a non-panel decision, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion. A panel decision on an issue will govern the trial.

(c)Petition decisions. A decision by the Board on whether to institute a trial is final and nonappealable. A party may request rehearing on a decision by the Board on whether to institute a trial pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section. When rehearing a decision on petition, a panel will review the decision for an abuse of discretion.

(d)Rehearing. A party dissatisfied with a decision may file a single request for rehearing without prior authorization from the Board. The burden of showing a decision should be modified lies with the party challenging the decision. The request must specifically identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or overlooked, and the place where each matter was previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply. A request for rehearing does not toll times for taking action. Any request must be filed:

(1) Within 14 days of the entry of a non-final decision or a decision to institute a trial as to at least one ground of unpatentability asserted in the petition; or

(2) Within 30 days of the entry of a final decision or a decision not to institute a trial.

PTAB作出反駁華為的意見：

A. Huawei has not made a “good cause” showing for admitting Exhibits 1039–1041 with the Request for Rehearing

華為要在復審中提出新的證據，但並沒有進行事先溝通，也沒有解釋為何要在復審提出新證據，沒有正當理由。




B. We did not misapprehend or overlook certain evidence regarding the
proper construction of the claim term “scheduling request”

PTAB不認為在scheduling request解釋上有誤，並反駁從字面與一般意思來解釋，scheduling request沒有包含bit message的意思，且也合理地應以最廣而合理的方式解釋這些用語。

C. We did not misapprehend or overlook certain portions of the Petition that purportedly explain how the asserted prior art teaches or suggests a scheme where the claimed “second SR” is a single bit message

華為沒有理由要求PTAB對其中特定用語以新的內容解釋。

"If Huawei desired for us to consider one portion of the Petition as supporting arguments presented and developed in another portion of the Petition, it should have provided citations to those portions with particularity."

my two cents:
如此可知，在一個合法的行政程序中，若要提出與先前不同的證據或是答辯意見（新理由），都需要證明這是充分且必要，否則，程序上不容易讓官方認錯。

官方「先例&情報決定」連結：
Precedential and Informative Decisions

本篇PTAB決定：
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Huawei-Device-Co.-Ltd.-v.-Optis-Cellular-Tech.-LLC-IPR2018-00816-%28Paper-19%29.pdf（備份：https://app.box.com/s/pv1aekgv4nbi3jt2h3ovst5hwxdbd5vw）

Ron