A Genus Is Not The “same patentable invention” As A Species
美專102判斷新穎性時通常用：
That which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.
引證案如果作為後案會侵權本案，則作為前案就會預見本案。
因此前案揭露 Species 而後案揭露 Genus 時，後案會不具新穎性而無法取得專利，而且反之“不然”，但是試想若兩案都在申請中時，在102(e)(g)下這又會是什麼樣的情形？此時就應採用斷所謂的“Two-Way Test”：
Invention A must be separately patentable from Invention B considered as prior art and Invention B must be separately patentable from Invention A considered as prior art.
因此在102(e)(g)的情況下，前案揭露 Species 而後案揭露 Genus 時，後案還是可以取得專利，只是不知道其他第三者侵犯 Species 的專利時，不知是否也應賠償擁有 Genus 專利的專利權人？
參考一下美國聯邦法規的規定：§ 1.601 Scope of rules, definitions. - PATENT RULES: 37 CFR 1.601(n)
(n) Invention 'A' is the same patentable invention as an invention 'B' when invention 'A' is the same as (35 U.S.C. 102) or is obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention 'B' assuming invention 'B' is prior art with respect to invention 'A'. Invention 'A' is a separate patentable invention with respect to invention 'B' when invention 'A' is new (35 U.S.C. 102) and non-obvious (35 U.S.C. 103) in view of invention 'B' assuming invention 'B' is prior art with respect to invention 'A'.
在 判斷是否為 double patenting 或是否需要啟動 Interference 時，即利用此種“Two-Way Test”，這與判斷是否具可專利性不同，但是從 37 CFR 1.601(n) 就字義上的解譯，似乎較偏向“One-Way Test”。但可看看法官們怎麼解譯：
"Federal Circuit Affirms Two-Way Test for Patentably Distinct Subject Matter"
The Court further found that the PTO's interpretation of its own regulation (namely Rule 601(n), quoted above) to require a two way test is controlling unless "plainly erroneous or inconsistent with regulation." The Court reasoned that the phrase in Rule 601(n), "assuming invention B is prior art with respect to invention A" is reasonably susceptible to the PTO's interpretation, namely that because (a) it is not known a priori which of the two inventions is prior art (b) and the phrase does not require that invention B presumptively be that of the senior party, the PTO may interpret the phrase to mean that both inventions may be assumed to be prior art invention B.
法規所使用的語言是 A 和 B，並沒有明確指明 A 和 B 哪一個應是 senior party，因此 two way test 是適當的。
============================================
相知道的更多，可參考：
Introduction to Interference, by Richard Neifeld, Ph.D., Patent Attorney: "Introduction to Interference"
37 CFR 1.131 precludes antedating a U.S. patent reference when the patent reference's claims interfere with the application's claims. (4) Prior to Winter, many believed that a U.S. patent reference could not be antedated when there was one-ways obviousness between the pending claims and the reference patent's claims. However, Winter specified a different conclusion, and its impacts are significant. Thus, removing a limitation in a pending claim previously interfering with a claim in an issued patent may result in that claim no longer satisfying the two-ways test, and therefore no longer interfering. If the applicant can also antedate the U.S. patent reference as to the broader amended pending claim, the broader amended pending claim is not rejectable based upon the existence of the U.S. patent reference.
參見：這裡
A. SAME INVENTION-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING
The prohibition against patenting the same invention more than once has its origins in 35 U.S.C. §101, which states that an inventor may obtain “a patent” on an invention.
The test currently used for same invention-type double patenting is “whether one of the claims being compared could be literally infringed without literally infringing the
other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention.” In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (C.C.P.A. 1970).
Patently-O: Patent Law Blog: Patent Board Codifies Two-Way Test for Interference, Streamlines Process.: "Under the two-way test, 'An interference exists if the subject matter of a claim of one party would, if prior art, have anticipated or rendered obvious the subject matter of a claim of the opposing party and vice versa.' "
Google 搜尋: "two way test"
two way test：批評 two way test 的 Memorandum。
two way test
two way test the same claims
日本的美國ip news..
沒有留言:
張貼留言