【美專】product-by-process claims

關於Product-by-Process請求項--從ABBOTT v. SANDOZ案談起

http://www.saint-island.com.tw/report/data/IPR_201001.htm#a02

由於CAFC在Atlantic案及Scripps案分歧的見解，CAFC在本案中特別針對此議題主動召開全院聯席會議(註10)，以期日後在解釋製法界定產物請求項的申請專利範圍時能有統一的標準。

CAFC全院聯席會議最後決議採用Atlantic案的見解：「在判斷侵權時，製法界定產物請求項的製法必須被視為限制條件」。然而，Newman法官在反對意見書中強烈反對該判決，且Mayer及Lourie法官也支持Newman法官的意見。

本案判決主文另引用最高法院在Warner-Jenkinson案(註14)的判決，指出最高法院重申廣泛的原則：「一申請專利範圍中包含的每一元件對於定義該專利發明範圍而言，皆被視為是重要的(註15)」，並聲明Scripps案係與該原則不一致，因此CAFC在本案中明白地推翻Scripps案判決。

========================

先參考一下 MPEP 的內容

"[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)

product-by-process claims 雖然 limited by and defined by the process ，但決定可專利性則是基於產品本身，而非決定於製造方法。

參考一下這一篇文章：
The Patent Office now issues product-by-process claims where the applicant chooses to claim his invention as such, even though the invention can be distinguished from the prior art in terms of composition and/or structure.

即使一種 product 可以用組成或結構限定而與先前技術加以區別，還是可以使用 product-by-process claims 的方式來限定。

product-by-process claims可參考如下：
A wafer for production of an LED prepared by a process comprising the steps of: ……

Thus, the applicant may rebut the examiner's prima facie case by comparing the invention to the prior art product produced by a different process, and by establishing an unobvious difference (e.g., an unexpected result with respect to one or more properties) between the claimed product and the prior art product. The results of such comparative testing are suitably presented in a Declaration under 37 C.F.R. §1.132.

可以提出反 証，比較 the claimed product and the prior art product 間的不同，如 e.g., an unexpected result with respect to one or more properties ，反駁審查員的prima facie case 。

【權利範圍】

One panel of the Federal Circuit held that a product-by-process claim is not limited by the steps recited therein (the Scripps panel), whereas another panel of the Federal Circuit (the Atlantic Thermoplastics panel) held that product-by-process claims only cover products that are produced by the process steps recited in the claim. That is, the Atlantic Thermoplastics panel held that product-by-process claims do not cover an identical product made by a different process.

product-by-process claims 的權利範圍解譯，法官們的意見是分歧的， the Scripps panel 認為不應僅限定於 process 本身，而the Atlantic Thermoplastics panel 則認為應限定於process 本身。我最好的解譯可自行參考Newman法官的不同意見書。 其他：

Thus, a key inquiry for construction of the product-by-process claims is whether the claimed product was distinguished over the prior art based on the product characteristics, or whether the process limitations were added because applicant could not otherwise distinguish over the prior art. In the former case, the court could construe the claims at issue in accordance with either Scripps or Atlantic Thermoplastics. In the latter case, the claims at issue would most likely be construed as being limited to the process steps recited therein.

關鍵在於 product 本身具有可專利性，但用 product-by-process claims 來加以限定；或是 product 本身為習知，但 the claimed product and the prior art product 間具有非顯而易知的差異（unobvious difference），如 e.g., an unexpected result with respect to one or more properties 。

原因在於（見此頁）：
The court reasoned that since in determining questions of patentability in order to secure grant of a product by process claim one had to show that the product itself was novel, there was no reason why a similar standard should not apply to questions of infringement.

=================================
後該突然想到：

product 本身為習知，但 the claimed product and the prior art product 間具有非顯而易知的差異（unobvious difference），如 e.g., an unexpected result with respect to one or more properties ，這種具非顯而易知差異的 product ，利用其非顯而易知差異的性質，若是發明人第一個想到的，為什麼它的權利範圍要限定在“製程”？我覺得應該要視整個發明的新穎點在哪、以及整個發明貢獻社 會的程度，來決定它的權利範圍，換句話說：視說明書 teaching 多少，權利範圍就給多少，必竟若用結構限定申請專利範圍，它本來可以請求的專利範圍就是說明書 teaching 的程度。

舉例：
有一高分子，一般具有某特定的“交聯程度 ”，該行業者都知若具有更高的交聯程度，可以達到更好的實用性，但是卻一直無法製得具更高交聯程度的產品，若一專利製程得到此種產品，那麼它的貢獻就僅限 於該製程，則其權利範圍應限定在“製程”。
相反地，若該行業者都不知道該高分子可以有更高的交聯程度，具皆認為即使有更高的交聯程度亦不會具有實用性，若一發明得到相反結果，那他的貢獻就不僅限於製程，其權利範圍就不應僅限於“製程”，而可擴大至非此製程製得的產品。


=============



PRODUCT-BY-PROCESS CLAIMS
 PATENTABILITY AND INFRINGEMENT



以物來解釋

 The Scripps Case

In the decision of Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 18 USPQ 2nd 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1991), a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit (Circuit Judges Newman and Markey and District Judge Beer) held that the "product-by-process" claims at issue were properly interpreted as product claims, independent of how the product was made. In this regard, the court reasoned that Scripps distinguished the claimed product over the prior art based on product characteristics (such as potency and purity) as opposed to the particular process (i.e., chromatographic adsorption to a specific monoclonal antibody) used to accomplish the separation, and was therefore patentable independent of the process used to make the product.

該product本身已與習知的product有差異，process只是用來定義該物，而非用來區隔習知的product。

以方法來解釋

The Atlantic Thermoplastics Case

In the decision of Atlantic Thermoplastics Corp. v. Faytex Corp., 23 USPQ 2nd 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1992), a subsequent panel of the Federal Circuit (Circuit Judges Archer, Michel and Rader) held that product-by-process claims are limited in an infringement inquiry by the process terms recited therein. This panel of the Federal Circuit declined to follow the prior ruling of the court in Scripps.

該判決認為，應以process來解釋該product，同時declined to follow the prior ruling of the court in Scripps，也就是說最新的判決是支持以process來限定權利範圍。

表面上看來Scripps和Atlantic這兩個案子的結論相反，但從習知技術的範圍來看，兩個案子的判決不矛盾。因此才會有Newman法官的不同意見書，「視習知技術範圍來決定權利範圍」。但以後會怎麼發展只能等以後的判決而定，但個人以為Newman法官的見解滿好的，應該是以後判決的方向。

例如在地院的The Tropix Case