2020年4月9日 星期四

有關摘要的撰寫規定 - 筆記&範例

筆記&範例

聽說同事處理專利申請案因為「摘要」撰寫不符規定而被駁回,...核駁理由大約是審查委員認為摘要應該要完整撰寫「發明/創作欲解決之問題、解決問題之技術手段與主要用途」,這樣的話,來看看怎麼寫「摘要」?

每一個完整的文章應該是有:起、承、轉、合,這是從一個網頁的理解:https://www.rocknovels.com/blog-post_12.html

如果簡短如「專利摘要」的寫作,至少寫這些吧!

1. "專利名稱"應該要帶入,之後說這個發明用在哪裡,可以簡單說個環境,如網路系統、工廠、家庭。
2. 直接描述技術手段,可以參考規劃中的最大專利範圍,並可斟酌加入一些重要元件(可能在附屬項中)。
(可以不要有結尾)
3. 如果要有"結尾",可以是一個動作的結束,或是完成一個裝置,也可能會不自禁地置入「最後達成的功效」,不過,這種內容對將來解釋專專利範圍或是訴訟可能有負面影響。(編按,"功效"應該是專利範圍描述的發明的功效,但是專利範圍會因為一或多次答辯而改變,功效必然會有差異或是轉變,除非很認真地隨著專利範圍改變而修改這部分描述)

根據實務經驗,摘要...千奇百怪,最方便的寫法就是將「初稿」的Claim 1置入,改成比較好讀的寫法,避免一些用語。有時我個人會一開始寫稿時就將摘要寫出,這時不是依照Claim 1寫,而是憑著對發明的理解寫出摘要,我覺得這才像摘要(之後可能會依照更多的理解而修改),不過卻也不容易每次都這樣做!

隨便找幾件範例。

範例一:
Apple Inc.的US9686539("Camera pair calibration using non-standard calibration objects"),摘要如下,順便帶入說明:


"Systems, methods, and computer readable media for calibrating two cameras (image capture units) using a non-standard, and initially unknown, calibration object are described (專利名稱). More particularly, an iterative approach to determine the structure and pose of an target object in an unconstrained environment are disclosed (應用情境). The target object may be any of a number of predetermined objects such as a specific three dimensional (3D) shape, a specific type of animal (e.g., dogs), or the face of an arbitrary human. Virtually any object whose structure may be expressed in terms of a relatively low dimensional parametrized model may be used as a target object (發明的動機) The identified object (i.e., its pose and shape) may be used as input to a bundle adjustment operation resulting in camera calibration (用途).

小結:結果這件並未描述「技術手段」,嚴格來說,看不出技術手段!

--------------------------------
範例二:
Apple Inc.的US9462558("Managing power consumption of transmission circuitry in a wireless communication device"),摘要與說明如下:


"Methods, apparatuses and computer readable media are described that manage transmit power levels for a wireless device connected to a network access system of a wireless network (專利名稱). Processing circuitry in the wireless device obtains a target average transmit power level. Based on estimates of an actual average transmit power level for a sliding window of a past time period and the target average transmit power level, the processing circuitry determines a target transmit power level, a duty cycle percentage, and a transmit pattern of transmit on frames and transmit off frames for a future time period. The processing circuitry sends to the access network system signaling messages indicating non-zero valued buffer status reports for the transmit on frames and zero valued buffer status reports for the transmit off frames. Non-zero values correspond to actual amounts of pending uplink data, while zero values are sent irrespective of actual uplink buffer status (技術手段)."

小結:本篇就只寫兩件事:專利名稱與主要技術手段,並對應此案的Claim 1。

--------------------------------
範例三:
Google LLC的US10489112("Method for user training of information dialogue system"),摘要與說明如下:

"Provided is a method for user training of an information dialogue system (專利名稱). The method may include activating a user input subsystem, receiving a training request entered by the user, converting the training request into text by the user input subsystem, sending the text of the training request obtained as a result of the conversion to a dialogue module, processing the text of the training request by the dialogue module, forming a response to the training request by the dialogue module, and sending the response to the training request to the user. The response to the training request may be formed in a form of one or more of the following: a voice cue, a text, and an action performed by the information dialogue system (技術手段)."

小結:本篇摘要也僅兩件事,也符合本篇最前面的說明,就專利名稱與技術手段而已,內容遠小於之後核准的Claim 1。


--------------------------------
回頭看台灣、歐洲與美國的法規怎麼說。(這才是應該要注意的,以上的說明僅是個人意見,或是代理人的習慣)

US:
美國「35 U.S.C. 112 SPECIFICATION」規範專利說明書的撰寫要求,但這部分並未規範摘要,如果看MPEP 2163.01,這是說明書支持請求項標的的規定,其中要求說明書(written description)要支持專利範圍(claimed subject matter),這是112(a)的要求,且可知到,Written description由abstract, specification 以及 drawings組成。

MPEP 608.01(b) Abstract of the Disclosure

"Abstract" or "Abstract of the Disclosure" as a heading.
「摘要」內容可視為說明書(specification)的一部分,因此,表示要符合112規定,也會被核駁並要求修正,也會影響專利是否核准。

「摘要」撰寫應簡明地描述技術特徵,應關於揭露書揭示的發明(不得有無關內容),應包括發明中新穎的部分,不能包括優點與推測的內容,也不應與現有技術比較(編按,十分重要的提醒)

如果發明關於現有技術的改良,摘要應該要包括改良的內容。

(重要)如果適用,應該:(1)如果是機器或裝置,應包括其中組成與運作;(2)如果是物品,應包括其製作方法;(3)如果是化學成份,應包括其特性與用途;(4)如果是混合物,應包括其成份;(5)如果是流程,應包括其步驟。有關衍生的機構與設計細節不應包括在摘要中。


若發明涉及化學成份,應提出其通式。

PCT規定:
MPEP 1826(含37CFR1.438,有關PCT規範)提到「摘要」的撰寫是要有效地作為「掃描工具」,目的是提供檢索用(編按,因此要明確定讓閱讀者知道發明的領域,這部分有「發明領域」,特別如PCT規則要求要讓科學家、工程師與研發人員考量申請國際申請案的依據)。根據37CFR1.438規定,沒有「摘要」,不影響取得專利申請日的權益,但還是要補,否則會被撤銷。

繼續補充:摘要應包括「揭露內容、申請專利範圍與圖示」的總結(summary),如果適用(顯然是針對化學、醫藥方面的發明),應包括化學方程式(主要特徵)。「摘要」應以簡明方式撰寫(50~150字,但非絕對,這是因應印刷/公報的需求)。同樣地,摘要的用途也是為了可以有效地檢索用途,

摘要要表達的是,關於發明中新穎的部分,還建議寫為「the invention "relates to"」,並不准寫出關於發明的優點與其評價("statements on the alleged merits or value of the invention are not allowed.")。

50~150字的摘要撰寫規定:
(A) 指出發明領域(編按,可從專利名稱得出)。
(B) 清楚指出「技術問題」。
(C) 解決技術問題的手段總結(Summary of invention’s solution of the problem)。
(D) 主要用途。
(E) 如果要寫元件編號,應放在括號內。
(F) 如果適用,應包括主要化學方程式。

不能包括:
(A) 多餘的語言(廢話不多說)。
(B) 法律用語,如“said” and “means等。
(C) 優點與推測的陳述。
(D) 如上述(PCT Rule 9)規定的禁止內容。

EP:

Rule 47 Form and content of the abstract

「摘要」應指出發明名稱。
「摘要」應包括簡明的發明的總結。
「摘要」其總結(summary)應指出技術領域,應能清楚理解技術問題,應包括解決問題的解決方案的要點。
適用的話,應包括化學方程式,也應是發明的主要特徵。
不得包括優點評價等無關用語。
不能超過150字。
歐洲專利公開案所謂的摘要,包括了主要圖式。
「摘要」中的主要特徵,若標示在圖式中,應以括號標註編號。
「摘要」的撰寫,以有效檢索相關技術領域的目的為主。

TW:
(TW專利法施行細則)
- 摘要,應簡要敘明發明所揭露之內容,並以所欲解決之問題、解決問題之技術手段及主要用途為限。
(編按,這裡的「為限」,應該是規定不能超出這些內容,而非規定必須包括這些內容。)
- 字數以不超過二百五十字為原則。
- 有化學式者,應揭示最能顯示發明特徵之化學式。
- 摘要,不得記載商業性宣傳用語。


--- 法規 ---
TW專利法施行細則:

第二十一條  摘要,應簡要敘明發明所揭露之內容,並以所欲解決之問題、解決問題之技術手段及主要用途為限;其字數,以不超過二百五十字為原則;有化學式者,應揭示最能顯示發明特徵之化學式。

摘要,不得記載商業性宣傳用語。

摘要不符合前二項規定者,專利專責機關得通知申請人限期修正,或依職權修正後通知申請人。

申請人應指定最能代表該發明技術特徵之圖為代表圖,並列出其主要符號,簡要加以說明。

未依前項規定指定或指定之代表圖不適當者,專利專責機關得通知申請人限期補正,或依職權指定或刪除後通知申請人。

第二十二條  說明書、申請專利範圍及摘要中之技術用語及符號應一致。

前項之說明書、申請專利範圍及摘要,應以打字或印刷為之。

說明書、申請專利範圍及摘要以外文本提出者,其補正之中文本,應提供正確完整之翻譯。

US/PCT
MPEP1826/37CFR1.438

8.3 Guiding Principles in Drafting
The abstract shall be so drafted that it can efficiently serve as a scanning tool for purposes of searching in the particular art, especially by assisting the scientist, engineer or researcher in formulating an opinion on whether there is a need for consulting the international application itself.

37 CFR 1.438 The abstract
(a) Requirements as to the content and form of the abstract are set forth in PCT Rule 8, and shall be adhered to.
(b) Lack of an abstract upon filing of an international application will not affect the granting of a filing date. However, failure to furnish an abstract within one month from the date of the notification by the Receiving Office will result in the international application being declared withdrawn.

後續補充:
The abstract must consist of a summary of the disclosure as contained in the description, the claims and any drawings. Where applicable, it must also contain the most characteristic chemical formula. The abstract must be as concise as the disclosure permits (preferably 50 to 150 words if it is in English or when translated into English). National practice (see MPEP § 608.01(b)) also provides a maximum of 150 words for the abstract. See 37 CFR 1.72(b). The PCT range of 50 - 150 words is not absolute but publication problems could result when the PCT limit is increased beyond the 150 word limit. Maintaining the PCT upper limit is encouraged. As a rule of thumb, it can be said that the volume of the text of the abstract, including one of the figures from the drawings (if any), should not exceed what can be accommodated on an A4 sheet of typewritten matter, 1 1/2 spaced. The abstract of the international application as filed must begin on a new sheet following the claims (Administrative Instructions Section 207). The other physical requirements must correspond to those for the description. The abstract must be so drafted that it can efficiently serve as a scanning tool for the purposes of searching in the particular art. These and other requirements concerning the abstract are spelled out in detail in PCT Rule 8. Useful guidance can be obtained from the “Guidelines for the Preparation of Abstracts Under the Patent Cooperation Treaty,” published in the PCT Gazette (No. 5/1978). Those Guidelines may be obtained, in English and French, from the International Bureau.

The abstract should be primarily related to what is new in the art to which the invention pertains. Phrases should not be used which are implicit, (for instance, “the invention relates to...”), and statements on the alleged merits or value of the invention are not allowed.

Where the receiving Office finds that the abstract is missing, it invites the applicant to furnish it within a time limit fixed in the invitation. Where the receiving Office has not invited the applicant to furnish an abstract or the applicant fails to furnish an abstract within a time limit fixed in the invitation, the International Searching Authority establishes one. See PCT Rule 38. The same applies where the abstract does not comply with the requirements outlined in the preceding paragraphs. Where the abstract is established by the International Searching Authority, the applicant may propose modifications of, or comment on, the new abstract until the expiration of 1 month from the date of mailing of the international search report (PCT Rule 38.3).

SUMMARY OF ABSTRACT REQUIREMENTS
Preferably 50-150 words. Should contain:

(A) Indication of field of invention.
(B) Clear indication of the technical problem.
(C) Summary of invention’s solution of the problem.
(D) Principal use or uses of the invention.
(E) Reference numbers of the main technical features placed between parentheses.
(F) Where applicable, chemical formula which best characterizes the invention.
Should not contain:

(A) Superfluous language.
(B) Legal phraseology such as “said” and “means.”
(C) Statements of alleged merit or speculative application.
(D) Prohibited items as defined in PCT Rule 9.

MPEP § 608.01(b)/37 CFR 1.72(b)

MPEP 608.01(b) Abstract of the Disclosure
The Office of Patent Application Processing (OPAP) will review all applications filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a) for compliance with 37 CFR 1.72 and will require an abstract, if one has not been filed. In all other applications which lack an abstract, the examiner in the first Office action should require the submission of an abstract directed to the technical disclosure in the specification. See Form Paragraph 6.12 (below). Applicants may use either "Abstract" or "Abstract of the Disclosure" as a heading.

If the abstract contained in the application does not comply with the guidelines, the examiner should point out the defect to the applicant in the first Office action, or at the earliest point in the prosecution that the defect is noted, and require compliance with the guidelines. Since the abstract of the disclosure has been interpreted to be a part of the specification for the purpose of compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (In re Armbruster, 512 F.2d 676, 678-79, 185 USPQ 152, 154 (CCPA 1975)), it would ordinarily be preferable that the applicant make the necessary changes to the abstract to bring it into compliance with the guidelines. See Form Paragraphs 6.13-6.16 (below).

Replies to such actions requiring either a new abstract or amendment to bring the abstract into compliance with the guidelines should be treated under 37 CFR 1.111(b) practice like any other formal matter. Any submission of a new abstract or amendment to an existing abstract should be carefully reviewed for introduction of new matter, 35 U.S.C. 132, MPEP § 608.04. The abstract will be printed on the patent.


Upon passing the application to issue, the examiner should make certain that the abstract is an adequate and clear statement of the contents of the disclosure and generally in line with the guidelines. If the application is otherwise in condition for allowance except that the abstract does not comply with the guidelines, the examiner generally should make any necessary revisions by a formal examiner’s amendment after obtaining applicant’s authorization (see MPEP § 1302.04) rather than issuing an Ex parte Quayle action requiring applicant to make the necessary revisions.

B.    CONTENT
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.

If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure.

If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement.

Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps. Extensive mechanical and design details of apparatus should not be included in the abstract.

With regard particularly to chemical patents, for compounds or compositions, the general nature of the compound or composition should be given as well as the use thereof, e.g., "The compounds are of the class of alkyl benzene sulfonyl ureas, useful as oral anti-diabetics." Exemplification of a species could be illustrative of members of the class. For processes, the type of reaction, reagents and process conditions should be stated, generally illustrated by a single example unless variations are necessary.

EP
Rule 47 Form and content of the abstract

(1) The abstract shall indicate the title of the invention. 
(2) The abstract shall contain a concise summary of the disclosure as contained in the description, the claims and any drawings. The summary shall indicate the technical field to which the invention pertains, and shall be drafted in a manner allowing the clear understanding of the technical problem, the gist of the solution of that problem through the invention, and the principal use or uses of the invention. The abstract shall, where applicable, contain the chemical formula which, among those contained in the application, best characterises the invention. It shall not contain statements on the alleged merits or value of the invention or on speculative applications thereof.  
(3) The abstract shall preferably not contain more than one hundred and fifty words. 
(4) If the European patent application contains drawings, the applicant shall indicate the figure or, exceptionally, the figures of the drawings which should be published with the abstract. The European Patent Office may decide to publish one or more other figures if it considers that they better characterise the invention. Each essential feature mentioned in the abstract and illustrated by a drawing shall be followed by a reference sign placed in parentheses. 
(5) The abstract shall be drafted in such a manner as to constitute an efficient instrument for the purpose of searching in the particular technical field. In particular, it shall make it possible to assess whether consultation of the European patent application itself is necessary. 

Ron

2020年4月7日 星期二

應用習知技術去偵測自然特徵不可專利 - Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services (Fed. Cir. 2019)

Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC (Fed. Cir. 2019) - 此案例為2019年2月案例,雖值得參考,但就我這一年多的感覺來想,USPTO對發出101核駁意見的態度愈來愈"保守",沒有過去"蓬勃發展"地多(甚至對結構專利都會發出101意見!),如果有,多半是針對「純軟體」案,而且意見也容易回應!

然而,實務上看到的也如本案審判的過程看到的,都是「就事論事」,且就發明之「整體」來論述,也就是針對實質的技術討論101,無法迴避「技術本質的討論」,而非僅「抽象地」討論101議題。(編按,至少這不會淪於法律論述,而是可以"理性地"查驗發明的實際技術的貢獻)

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

Athena v. Mayo (Fed. Cir. 2019)案件資訊:
原告/上訴人/專利權人:ATHENA DIAGNOSTICS, INC., OXFORD UNIVERSITY INNOVATION LTD., MAX-PLANCKGESELLSCHAFT ZUR FORDERUNG DER WISSENSCHAFTEN E.V.
被告/被上訴人:MAYO COLLABORATIVE SERVICES, LLC, DBA MAYO MEDICAL LABORATORIES, MAYO CLINIC
系爭專利:US7,267,820
判決日:February 6, 2019

本案緣起專利權的專屬被授權人"Athena"等對Mayo提出侵權告訴,但經被告提出請願後,系爭專利被地院認為不符35 U.S.C. § 101,案件上訴議題即落於101議題。

系爭專利US7,267,820關於哺乳動物中神經傳遞障礙的診斷方法,方法是通過檢測肌肉特異性蛋白的抗體(酪氨酸激酶,“ MuSK”),其中主要爭點在Claims 6-9,列舉Claims 7-9如下:

1. A method for diagnosing neurotransmission or developmental disorders related to muscle specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK) in a mammal comprising the step of detecting in a bodily fluid of said mammal autoantibodies to an epitope of muscle specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK).

7. A method according to claim 1, comprising contacting MuSK or an epitope or antigenic determinant thereof having a suitable label thereon, with said bodily fluid, immunoprecipitating any antibody/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK epitope or antigenic determinant complex from said bodily fluid and monitoring for said label on any of said antibody/MuSK complex or antibody/MuSK epitope or antigen determinant complex, wherein the presence of said label is indicative of said mammal is suffering from said neurotransmission or developmental disorder related to muscle specific tyrosine kinase (MuSK).

8. A method according to claim 7 wherein said label is a radioactive label.

9. A method according to claim 8 wherein said label is 125I.

地院階段:
判決中大篇幅地討論系爭專利技術,有點繁複,但可知的是,系爭專利中有些主要技術為申請時已知的技術,如iodination、immunoprecipitation,其中所檢測的抗體也是身體中的自然作用,使得地方法院依據35 U.S.C. 101檢驗法則,認定系爭專利範圍涉及「自然律(law of nature)」(step one),也因為採用的僅是標準的技術,並未包括進步特徵(inventive concept)(step two)。



CAFC階段:
CAFC採用TWO-STEP檢驗法則,專利權人主張系爭專利範圍揭示具體步驟,非屬於自然律,而被告Mayo主張系爭專利採用了自然發生的抗體特徵,涉及(directed to)自然律,CAFC同意Mayo意見。



(編按,Mayo顯然熟悉這個關於自然律的論點,可參考過去報導:使用自然律的技術可專利性專利適格性討論 - Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. 2012)https://enpan.blogspot.com/2015/10/mayo-collaborative-services-v.html

本案在討論101議題時,特別地就技術而論,CAFC法官認為,自然發生的「肌肉特異性蛋白的抗體(酪氨酸激酶,“ MuSK”,指一種體液中自然存在的自身抗體("autoantibodies"))」,本案關於所述「自身抗體」與「神經系統疾病」的關聯,而此關聯性存在於自然界中

這是法官理解的知識:
"Here, it is the correlation between the presence of naturally-occurring MuSK autoantibodies in bodily fluid and MuSK related neurological diseases like MG. This correlation exists in nature apart from any human action. There can thus be no dispute that it is an ineligible natural law."

Athena也有不錯的論點,但是,也如專利權人Athena的論點,並非每一個專利項都涉及此自然律,也有使用、應用、依賴這個自然律、自然現象或抽象概念的發明。



CAFC法官也注意到,即便有以上論述,但仍應考量專利範圍的「整體」是否僅涉及不可專利的自然律,是否發明有進一步改良了技術流程?

這是,法官就參考前例:

"CellzDirect"
這裡,法官考量了前例「CellzDirect」,其中涉及備置肝臟細胞(hepatocytes)的方法,這件案例系爭專利關於發現了細胞的生存能力,這是一種「自然律」,CAFC法院卻認為此案發明不涉及自然律,這是因為就申請專利範圍"整體"而言,系爭專利描述了新而改良的方法(保存肝細胞作為之後用途),並非僅觀察或檢測肝細胞在特定環境中的生存能力!這是屬於使用自然律改良技術的發明,符合專利適格性!

"This was because the claims as a whole recited “a new and improved way of preserving hepatocyte cells for later use,” “not simply an observation or detection of the ability of hepatocytes to survive multiple freeze-thaw cycles.”"

可參考過去報導:
- 描述細胞的自然能力不代表不能專利 - Rapid Litigation Management v. CellzDirect (Fed. Cir. 2016)https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/07/rapid-litigation-management-v.html

"Cleveland Clinic"
關於此案,就有所不同,法官在此案例中認為此案專利範圍僅描述了觀察自然發生的生物關聯性,以觀察自然發生的關聯性來預測病患風險的發明,其中缺乏有意義、非常規的步驟,因此屬於涉及自然律的發明!("claims merely recite observing naturally occurring biological correlations “with no meaningful non-routine steps in between” are directed to a natural law."),因此不屬於可專利的發明。

可參考過去報導:
- 使用習知標準,必然要有新穎的技術特徵 - Cleveland Clinic v. True Health Diagnostics (Fed. Cir. 2019)https://enpan.blogspot.com/2019/04/cleveland-clinic-v-true-health.html

回到本案,系爭專利範圍涵蓋「自然律的發現」以及「具體觀察運作的步驟」,特別如Claim 9,但是其中"wherein"內容("wherein said label is 125I")表達發明僅應用習知技術去偵測自然的特徵,法官認為這仍是屬於自然律的描述!

in claim 9:
(1) mixing MuSK or an epitope thereof having a 125I label with bodily fluid; 
(2) immunoprecipitating any resulting antibody/MuSK complex; and 
(3) monitoring for the label on the complex.

另有關於系爭專利範圍是否具備進步特徵(inventive concept)的查驗,法官認為,系爭專利範圍僅「應用在標準方法的標準的技術」,並沒有所述進步特徵。

"Claim 6 merely recites the application of this standard technique to observe a natural law. This does not provide an inventive concept under step two."

CAFC結論:
如果僅使用了習知技術中的「常規」步驟觀察自然特徵,使用人造的分子仍不能影響適格性判斷!((重要)"...the use of a man-made molecule is not decisive if it amounts to only a routine step in a conventional method for observing a natural law."

因此,僅應用習知技術去偵測自然的特徵,不符合101專利適格性規定


my two cents:
以上提出案例,"CellzDirect"、"Cleveland Clinic"加上本案,應該都是相關領域值得參考的案例!

Newman法官又持反對意見了,她主要的反對的是,CAFC判決與前例不一致,或是各案之間見解不一致,認為,涉及如本案例中的診斷相關技術討論的應是102, 103與可實施性等議題,這類技術應都屬於可以專利的範疇,這裡摘錄她的意見(細節可參考判決文後):
The claims are for a multi-step method of diagnosis, not a law of nature
Section 101 describes patent-eligible subject matter in broad and general terms
The amici curiae raise strong concerns for the consequences for biomedical diagnostics

"Applying the statute correctly, diagnostic claims should be evaluated for novelty and unobviousness, specificity and enablement. A method that meets these statutory criteria is within the system of patents, whether the diagnosed event occurs in the human body or in an extraneous device."

簡單來說,根據Newman的意見,關於技術的問題,應訴諸102, 103與可實施的討論,而非僅專注在專利適格性!(編按,這點也是頗為重要,雖然101論述也會涉及技術討論(根據USPTO審查指南),因此各發明人先不用為了以上討論的議題而阻礙了專利申請,因為都是人在審,"不一致"是正常的,關乎最後的判決的僅是法官形成心證的軌跡!

藥物/醫學方法有用一般應該是因為利用生物原本對於特定刺激的反應,再從利用“發現”的機制開發藥物,這部分往往是「利用自然律」的“發明”,因此“發明”不能只有利用既有的機制的方法,其中應該要有「人為的努力」(endeavor),藥物很正常就是有配方,診斷方法應該要有醫療工具,若僅為方法本身,如本案例(“claim 1: 在哺乳動物中診斷與肌肉特異性酪氨酸激酶(MuSK)有關的神經傳遞或發育障礙的方法”),就可能遇到需要但如果因此會有不能專利的困擾。

判決文:https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-2508/17-2508-2019-02-06.pdf?ts=1549470647(備份:https://app.box.com/s/j3zlq11ysrrdtoceljvndbvyja6miqkp

資料參考:
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/02/diagnosis-ineligible.html

Athena v. Mayo
https://patentlyo.com/patent/2019/11/athena-strong-support.html

Ron

2020年3月31日 星期二

先前技術之間的「累積效應」影響是否啟始IPR審理 - Oticon v. Cochlear (IPR2019-00975, PTAB 2019)

本篇討論USPTO提出作為先例(precedential)的IPR案:Oticon Medical AB v. Cochlear Limited (IPR2019-00975) (PTAB Oct. 16, 2019),案件涉及是否與過去審查歷史有相同理由的爭議(35 U.S.C. § 325(d)),與前兩次討論(IPR2019-01469IPR2019-01042)拒絕啟始的決定相反。(另有關於「reasonable likelihood of prevailing(合理的勝訴可能性)」的不錯的提醒

經查,其中很重要的議題是,先前技術之間的累積效應(cumulative)。

IPR2019-00975案件資訊:
IPR異議人:OTICON MEDICAL AB; OTICON MEDICAL LLC; WILLIAM DEMANT HOLDING A/S
專利權人:COCHLEAR LIMITED
系爭專利:US9,838,807 (IPR2019-00975)

本案緣起Oticon對Cochlear的專利'807提起IPR異議,PTAB根據雙方提出資料決定啟始系爭專利的IPR審查。啟始理由主要是:審查官根據雙方提出的異議理由、初步回應等資料初判異議人提出異議理由具有可以撤銷其中至少一項專利範圍專利權的合理的勝訴可能性("reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition")。涉及法條:35 U.S.C. 31135 U.S.C. 313、35 U.S.C. 314(a)

系爭專利US9,838,807關於醫用的義肢(耳部)骨錨固定器,系爭專利的技術在於結構特徵,還可傳遞聲音。


1. An anchoring fixture for anchoring a prosthesis to a skull bone comprising:
a screw thread apparatus including a screw thread having a varying outer diameter;
a flange configured to function as a stop for the anchoring fixture adapted to rest on top of the bone when the anchoring fixture is implanted into the bone; and
a circumferential groove located, with respect to a side of the flange, on the anchoring fixture on a threaded side of the anchoring fixture,
wherein the anchoring fixture is configured for anchoring a hearing prosthesis component to the skull bone at a location behind an external ear so that sound is transmitted from the hearing prosthesis via the skull bone to the cochlea.

主要討論議題:35 U.S.C. § 325(d)

IPR異議理由:

WO 98/55049 (“Håkansson”)
US 6,981,873 B2 (“Choi”)
WO 2006/065205 A1 (“Brånemark”)
US 7,074,222 B2 (“Westerkull ’222”)
US 7,116,794 B2 (“Westerkull ’794”)

面對異議理由,先解釋專利範圍,依照案例"Phillips v. AWH Corp (Fed. Cir. 2005)",發明相關領域一般技術人員參照說明書與其審查歷史以通常與慣用的意思來解釋專利範圍("...the words of a claim are generally given their “ordinary and customary meaning,” which is the meaning they would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, in light of the specification and prosecution history.")。

(技術細節就不在此討論)


案件涉及「35 U.S.C. § 325(d)」有關PTAB可以拒絕啟始/審理過去已經審理過的理由,包括相同或實質相同的先前技術以及論點,除非異議人可以證明當時審理有誤。


針對325(d)議題,考量的是「Becton Dickinson factors」:
(a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination;
(b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination;
(c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection;
(d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art;
(e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and
(f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.

以下為PTAB針對"Becton Dickinson Factors"結論(回應專利權人的答辯):

- Becton Dickinson factors (a),(b): 本次異議理由採用的前案Choi過去並未被審理過。編按,這裡有個句子"cumulative nature of the asserted art",就是指即便引用前案不是同一案,但前後採用的前案有「累積效應(cumulative effect)」,但被PTAB否決。

過去審理用的前案Härle


本次異議理由使用的Choi:


USPTO審查委員曾於過去審查中引用Härle作為新穎性核駁引證案,與本次引用Choi中的"circumferential groove"結構不同,不會形成"累積效應(cumulative)"。(重要)

(重要)PTAB意見:"We observe that Choi is a different reference than Härle beyond the fact that Choi’s grooves are structurally different than Härle’s grooves and serve a different purpose."

- Becton Dickinson factors (c),(d): 查核系爭專利的審查歷史,PTAB委員認為,即便本次異議理由的前案「Westerkull ’794, Westerkull ’222, and Håkansson」曾被USPTO審查專利時考量過,但另一案Choi並未被考量,仍不足以讓PTAB拒絕審理

(編按,因此上述有關「累積效應」的判斷影響本案最終是否啟始的判斷)

"There is new, noncumulative prior art asserted in the Petition, e.g., Choi. For at least this reason, we determine not to exercise our discretion under § 325(d) to deny the Petition on this basis."

Becton Dickinson factors (e),(f): 因為以上判定,就不論此要素。

最後是103判斷,證明異議人已經證明系爭專利中至少一項範圍有被撤銷的合理的勝訴可能性!

結論:

We conclude that Petitioner has demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on its assertion that claims 1–12, 14, 16, 17, 25, 28, 33–35, 37–41, and 45–47 of the ’807 patent are unpatentable.


相關法條:
35 U.S.C. 311 INTER PARTES REVIEW.
(a) IN GENERAL.—Subject to the provisions of this chapter, a person who is not the owner of a patent may file with the Office a petition to institute an inter partes review of the patent. The Director shall establish, by regulation, fees to be paid by the person requesting the review, in such amounts as the Director determines to be reasonable, considering the aggregate costs of the review.
(b) SCOPE.—A petitioner in an inter partes review may request to cancel as unpatentable 1 or more claims of a patent only on a ground that could be raised under section 102 or 103 and only on the basis of prior art consisting of patents or printed publications.
(c) FILING DEADLINE.*—A petition for inter partes review shall be filed after the later of either—
(1) the date that is 9 months after the grant of a patent; or

(2) if a post-grant review is instituted under chapter 32, the date of the termination of such post-grant review.

35 U.S.C. 313 PRELIMINARY RESPONSE TO PETITION.

If an inter partes review petition is filed under section 311, the patent owner shall have the right to file a preliminary response to the petition, within a time period set by the Director, that sets forth reasons why no inter partes review should be instituted based upon the failure of the petition to meet any requirement of this chapter.

35 U.S.C. 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.
...

IPR決定:IPR2019-00975(備份:https://app.box.com/s/u5xoh72fitvhgqz4o42ij68o1r8ow0iw

Ron

2020年3月27日 星期五

PTAB拒絕重複審理過去已提過的理由 - PUMA v. NIKE (IPR2019-01042)

本案例「PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc. (IPR2019-01042)」如同日前報導的「PTAB有權拒絕相同理由的異議案 - Advanced Bionics v. Med-El elektromedizinische (PTAB)」,都是討論35 U.S.C. § 325(d)規定不必重複審理「相同異議/核駁理由」的案例。

PUMA v. NIKE (IPR2019-01042)案件資訊:
專利權人:NIKE, INC.
IPR異議人:PUMANORTH AMERICA, INC.
系爭專利:US9,314,065 (IPR2019-01042)

本案緣起PUMA對Nike的'065專利提起IPR異議,異議理由如下:

Anderton: U.S. Patent No. 5,461,801

Auger: U.S. Patent No. 8,056,267


'065專利關於鞋底的釘狀結構,結果用發明專利來寫,還有點複雜!






1. An article of footwear comprising:
a base plate including a forefoot region, a heel region, a midfoot portion disposed between the forefoot region and the heel region, a longitudinal axis extending through the forefoot region and heel region, a forward edge, a rearward edge, a medial edge, and a lateral edge;
a structure disposed on the base plate, the structure including a medial forefoot pad disposed on the forefoot region proximate the midfoot portion and the medial edge, a lateral forefoot pad disposed on the forefoot region proximate the midfoot portion and the lateral edge, a medial heel pad disposed on the heel region proximate the medial edge, a first lateral heel pad disposed on the heel region proximate the lateral edge, a first diagonal rib extending from the medial forefoot pad to the first lateral heel pad, a second diagonal rib extending from the lateral forefoot pad to the medial heel pad, a medial midfoot bar substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis and disposed proximate the medial edge, and a lateral midfoot bar substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis and disposed proximate the lateral edge;
a medial forefoot stud disposed on the medial forefoot pad;
a medial heel stud disposed on the medial heel pad;
a first lateral forefoot stud disposed on the lateral forefoot pad; and
a first lateral heel stud disposed on the first lateral heel pad;
the first diagonal rib having a first lateral edge intersecting with the first lateral heel pad;
the second diagonal rib having a second lateral edge intersecting with the first lateral forefoot pad;
the lateral midfoot bar having a third lateral edge;
wherein the medial midfoot bar extends from a first point on the first diagonal rib to a second point on the second diagonal rib; and
wherein the third lateral edge of the lateral midfoot bar intersects with, and terminates at, a third point on the second diagonal rib at a forward end of the lateral midfoot bar;
wherein the third lateral edge of the lateral midfoot bar intersects with, and terminates at, a fourth point on the first diagonal rib at a rearward end of the lateral midfoot bar;
wherein the third point is spaced from the lateral forefoot pad; and
wherein the fourth point is spaced from the first lateral heel pad.

用文字界定出鞋底結構還真的有些複雜,連命名都是:
first medial heel stud 132
second medial forefoot stud 134
first lateral forefoot stud 136
second lateral forefoot stud 138
third lateral forefoot stud 140
first center stud 142

second center stud 144
...

解釋專利範圍:

此案異議審理時,PTAB審查官提出解釋專利範圍的圓則是,應與此案在之前民事(侵權訴訟)案中的解釋標準一致,並採用Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)案所帶出的解釋原則。

判斷系爭專利是否具備非顯而易知性(35 U.S.C. 103),引用案例KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966),原則上就是分析出系爭案專利範圍與先前技術的差異後,判斷兩者差異是否具備非顯而易知性的客觀證據,也就是由相關領域一般技術人員判斷發明當時是否已經是顯而易見了,以及是否先前技術的組合已經產生可預期如系爭案發明的結果。

摘錄這裡採用「Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art」的定義(異議人主張,大家都無異議):相關領域實際工作2~4年的經驗者,還有學歷要求。
"a person of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time would have had “at least an undergraduate degree in consumer or industrial product design, engineering, or a related field, or at least around 2–4 years of practical work experience in the design and development of athletic footwear.”"

35 U.S.C. § 325(d)議題:

解釋專利範圍的預備工作後,議題轉向:35 U.S.C. § 325(d),由於主管機關(PTAB)認為相同或實質相同的先前技術與論述都已經在之前審查過程中提出,因此否決啟始本案。

與前篇討論一樣,採用「Becton Dickinson factors」,參考過去報導:AIA審判實務指南(TPG)筆記(https://enpan.blogspot.com/2018/08/aia-trial-practice-guide-tpg.html

Becton Dickinson factors
(a) the similarities and material differences between the asserted art and the prior art involved during examination;
(b) the cumulative nature of the asserted art and the prior art evaluated during examination;
(c) the extent to which the asserted art was evaluated during examination, including whether the prior art was the basis for rejection;
(d) the extent of the overlap between the arguments made during examination and the manner in which Petitioner relies on the prior art or Patent Owner distinguishes the prior art;
(e) whether Petitioner has pointed out sufficiently how the Examiner erred in its evaluation of the asserted prior art; and
(f) the extent to which additional evidence and facts presented in the Petition warrant reconsideration of the prior art or arguments.

Becton Dickinson factors (a): 大家都同意本次提出引證案與過去審理過的前案一樣,都是Anderton and Auger
Becton Dickinson factors (b): 因為(a)的結論,不用檢查(b)了。 
Becton Dickinson factors (c): 大家都同意本次提出異議理由與過去103議題審委採用的理由一樣。
Becton Dickinson factors (d): 經查本次異議理由與過去的審查意見(查的很詳細)論點,重疊性很高。
Becton Dickinson factors (e): 異議人並未成功地證明過去審查意見有錯(這部分等於異議人要重複提出103相關技術討論,如果與過去一致,也就沒有證明之前有錯!)。
Becton Dickinson factors (f): 此要件是要考量異議理由中是否有額外證據,以及提出的證據是否足夠推翻過去結論,結果PTAB認為異議人提出專家證詞並不足以證明與過去不同而能反駁過去審理意見。

最終,PTAB拒絕啟始本案,理由是異議人的主張已經在過去程序中提過,並且也未能證明審查意見有錯。

本篇IPR決定主要篇幅即圍繞在這六個要件上,可以成為日後採用"Becton Dickinson factors"而拒絕啟始與審理案件的參考。

PTAB決定:
PUMA North America, Inc. v. NIKE, Inc., IPR2019-01042 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2019)(備份:https://app.box.com/s/5yvyiakmo1ktf6tufbucpc5z03b5q49c

Ron