【美專】暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action

【美專】暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action

在取得專利的過程中，有時候會有其他任何的理由，希望“暫時地”停止審查以爭取時間，例如要追加實驗，取得証明本發明的優越性的資料。當有像這種正當的理由時，可以向uspto申請 「Suspension of Action」。 請“注意”這是與申請答辯期間延長（37 CFR1.136）是不相同的程序，所以符合規定要件也不同，更詳細的資訊，請參考聯邦法規37 CFR 1.103 及 MPEP 709 的相關規定。

37 CFR 1.103 Suspension of action.

(a) Suspension of action by the Office will be granted for good and sufficient cause and for a reasonable time specified upon petition by the applicant and, if such cause is not the fault of the Office, the payment of the fee set forth in § 1.17(i).　Action will not be suspended when a reply by applicant to an Office action is required.

(b) If action by the Office on an application is suspended when not requested by the applicant, the applicant shall be notified of the reasons thereof.

(c) Action by the examiner may be suspended by order of the Commissioner in the case of applications owned by the United States whenever publication of the invention by the granting of a patent thereon might be detrimental to the public safety or defense, at the request of the appropriate department or agency.

(d) Action on applications in which the Office has accepted a request to publish a defensive publication will be suspended for the entire pendency of these applications except for purposes relating to patent interference proceedings under Subpart E.

本資訊來源，請參考一下這篇日文文章。

３．Supplemental Amendment (37CFR§1.111) （施行日：2004年10月21日）
実務に関係の深い他の改定事項として、Supplemental Amendmentに係るものがあります。
従前は、Office Actionに応答した後であって、審査官が本件を再考する前であれば、Supplemental Amendmentの提出が認められていました。
これに対して、2004年10月21日以降は、一旦応答してしまうと、自由にSupplemental Amendmentを提出することは認められなくなりました。Supplemental Amendmentをファイルするには、事前に、”Request for Suspension of Action”(37CFR§1.103(a)/(c))をファイルし、許可を求めることが必要です。

サンプル１
非自明性に係る拒絶理由を受け、これに対して実験を行って追試データを追完したい場合、ＯＡに対して応答書を一旦ファイルした後、37CFR§1.103(a)に基づいて、その理由と共に”Request for Suspension of Action”をファイルし、許可を得る必要があります。ただし、許可された審査中断の期間内に上記追完を行わなければならない。

サンプル２
Final OA を受領し、これに対して応答書とＲＣＥをファイルする場合であって、応答書の内容を充実させるためにSupplemental Amendmentをファイルしたい場合、応答書とＲＣＥのファイルに加えて37CFR§1.103(a) に基づいて、その理由と共に”Request for Suspension of Action”をファイルし、許可を得る必要があります。ただし、許可された審査中断の期間内に上記追完を行わなければなりません。

なお、Supplemental Amendmentが次①～⑥に該当する場合、ＵＳＰＴＯは裁量により受理します。

1クレームをキャンセルする場合
2審査官の示唆に応じる場合
3出願を許可にするような補正を行う場合
4ＵＳＰＴＯの要求事項に従う場合
5たとえばタイプミス等の形式上の軽微な補正を行う場合
6審判手続における争点を簡素化する場合
 

【辭典】sua sponte 自發性的、依職權的

【辭典】sua sponte 自發性的、依職權的

一：主動行爲（act sua sponte）

二、三、四：sua sponte＝（法院）自發性的、依職權的「（裁判所が）自発的に、職権で」

五：「sua sponte」(「of their own accord」的意思)

【美專】“事實問題與法律問題”的收集整理

「事實問題」的收集
Infringement, whether literal or under the doctrine of equivalents, is a question of fact. See Bai v. L & L Wings, Inc., 160 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998).

「法律問題」的整理

【辭典】Without prejudice to 不損害

「（權利關係）不給與不利益的情況」、「對~不具實體的效果」、「不損害~」的意思。英國法中，由於要解除契約的話，會回復到原始的狀態，不得請求損害賠 償，為了回避這樣的主張，了使用“Without prejudice to”。又，為不涉及影響其他的權利義務，規定義務的免除或是權利行使的緩期時，亦使用“Without prejudice to”。
參照：ISDN4-7890-0904-1

歐洲法規29條就是：為不涉及影響其他的權利義務

EUROPEAN PATENT CONVENTION: IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS: Chapter II - Provisions governing the application , Rule 29 - Form and content of claims: "

(2)47 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:

【8月18日更新】：出處按一下
without prejudice：內容不具約束力
without prejudice to：在不損害... 的情況下
日本網站的解譯：
with prejudice ：n.　権利を損ない　　（訴訟法）
without prejudice ：n.　権利を損なうことなく（申請などを棄却する）　（訴訟法）

【9月19日更新】：出處按一下
"dismissal without prejudice"「再訴可能な訴え却下」
雖然是不損及權力的意思，不過如果不懂法，可能就不知道“不損及權力”是什麼意思。事實上就是「能夠再提訴訟的撤銷或不受理」的意思。

【2015年7月22日更新】

法律翻译典型句型 Without prejudice to

without prejudice to这个短语的功能相当于without affecting., 通常在后面跟一个直待某项法律条款的名词.但是对有关事物或者条款的规限程度,与 “subject to…”的句法结构相同，跟在“without prejudice to”这个短语之后的通常是一个指代某项法律条款的名词。但对有关事物或条款的规限程度，没有前者那么强硬。前者规限的程度是必须“符合”或“依照”有关条款或规定，后者指不要影响或损害其规限的事物。
在汉语中，其意思相当于“在不损害……的原则下”、“在不影响……的情况下”、“…… 不受影响”、“ 不妨碍……”、以及“不规限……”等等。例：

• Without prejudice to section 24, the following shall be treated as properly executed

在不影响24条规定的原则下,以下的遗嘱须视为正式签立。

• Without prejudice to your powers and discretions, we hereby authorize you or your agents to take any actions including but not limited to the following:

在不妨碍贵行权力和任意决定权受到损害的情况下,本公司兹授权贵行或贵行代理行采取包括但是不限于下列的任何行动

• Without prejudice to the rights of the Attorney General every complainant or informant shall be at liberty to conduct the complaint or information respectively and to have the witnesses examined and cross-examined by him or by counsel on his behalf.

在不损害律政司权利的原则下﹐每名申诉人或告发人可进行其申诉或告发﹐并亲自或由代表律师讯问及盘问证人。

【美專】teach away 相反教示

teach away 相反教示，當沒有答辯理由的時候常會被拿來用，不過看來好像一點都沒有用，因為教人往一個方向走，並不代表教人不要往另一個方向走。也許這是很簡單的道理，可是在沒有很清楚說不行的時候，總會忍不住想要拿來用用。我覺得還是不要亂用好了，不然給審查委員（因為小弟目前還不夠格遇不到法官）增加拒絕理由的內容，減少審查委員思考其他的理由的負擔，這樣比較來起很虧。

http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1252.pdf
"What the prior art teaches, whether it teaches away from the claimed invention, and whether it motivates a combination of teachings from different references are questions of fact." In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1199-1200 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

What a reference teaches a person of ordinary skill is not, as Syntex's expert appears to believe, limited to what a reference specifically "talks about" or what is specifically "mentioned" or “written” in the reference. Under the proper legal standard, a reference will teach away when it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely to produce the objective of the applicant's invention. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). A statement that a particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away absent clear discouragement of that combination. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1199-1200.

teaching 並不僅限於「what a reference specifically "talks about" or what is specifically "mentioned" or “written” in the reference」。

【辭典】Standard of Review審查標準

【辭典】Standard of Review審查標準

審查標準分成："de nove" 、"clearly erroneous standard"、 "arbitrary and capricious standard"、以及"substantial evidence standard" reviews。

關於法律問題適用"de nove" reviews，上級法院完全不採用下級法院的判斷來進行審查；

另一方面，關於事實問題則適用"clearly erroneous standard" reviews， 僅有在法律程序、法律適用發生錯誤時，才推翻下級法院的判斷。至於怎麼的錯誤才適合"clearly erroneous standard" reviews呢？即有如下三種：(1)法律的錯誤解譯、(2)判決沒有受到substantial evidence（有意義的立証証據）的支持、(3) evidence重要度的判斷錯誤（即，並非substantial evidence的証據卻錯誤地採用而下了錯誤的判斷。有意義的立証証據）。

"arbitrary and capricious standard"係適用於agency（政府的外部機關）或下級法院之判斷的審理，在發生藉由恣意且不合理的行為任意地適用及無視法律或事實時，將其判斷推翻。

"substantial evidence standard" reviews使用於agency之決定的審查，且以係為substantial的立証証據為基礎，agency做決定時，法院必須支持其決定。因此，隨著採用什麼樣的審查原則，當上級法院推翻下級法院或agency的判決、決定時，此時的困難性就會跟著改變。

此篇為網路看到的文章，請參照ken的美國法律散步道路！

========================================================
http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1252.pdf

A finding of inequitable conduct is committed to the trial judge's discretion and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1988). "To overturn such a determination, the appellant must establish that the ruling is based on clearly erroneous findings of fact or on a misapplication or misinterpretation of applicable law, or evidences a clear error of judgment on the part of the district court." Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Kingsdown Medical Consultants, 863 F.2d at 876. Findings of materiality and intent are factual findings subject to the clearly erroneous standard and, therefore, will not be disturbed on appeal unless this court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id.

CAFC 03-1333

While the ultimate determination of obviousness is a legal conclusion reviewed by this court without deference, that determination always entails various factual findings that this court reviews for clear error following a bench trial. See Weatherchem Corp. v. J.L. Clark, Inc., 163 F.3d 1326, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The clear error standard permits reversal only when this court is left with a "definite and firm conviction" that the district court was in error. Amhil Enters. Ltd. v. Wawa, Inc., 81 F.3d 1554, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

【八月十六日新增】 說明更多的審查標準
http://www.fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1252.pdf
A finding of inequitable conduct is committed to the trial judge's discretion and is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 876 (Fed. Cir. 1988). "To overturn such a determination, the appellant must establish that the ruling is based on clearly erroneous findings of fact or on a misapplication or misinterpretation of applicable law, or evidences a clear error of judgment on the part of the district court." Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing Kingsdown Medical Consultants, 863 F.2d at 876. Findings of materiality and intent are factual findings subject to the clearly erroneous standard and, therefore, will not be disturbed on appeal unless this court has a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Id.

【search】專利搜尋指導

專利搜尋指導：從google找到的資料

[PDF] GUIDE TO PATENT SEARCHING
檔案類型: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - HTML 版
Patent it Yourself. Berkeley, CA : Nolo. Pressman, David and Stim, Richard.
Nolo’s Patents for Beginners. Berkeley, CA : Nolo. ANY LISTING OF PATENTS YOU
RECEIVE AND ANY ADVICE YOU RECEIVE FROM ANYONE AS. TO PATENTABILITY IS TENTATIVE. ...
www.lib.uidaho.edu/reference/ p_and_t/Patentsearching.pdf

[PDF] Searching Patents at Centennial Library
檔案類型: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - HTML 版
Patents. Both books are kept at the Patent Reference Table. In addition we have
several. books designed to help you protect your idea on your own, such as Patent
it Yourself,. and the Inventor's Desktop Companion.
elibrary.unm.edu/csel/handouts/Searching_Patents.pdf

簡單的patent-tutorial：
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/engin/patent-tutorial/index.htm

臺灣政府做的資料：按一下

【辭典】Per Se 本身、本質

【辭典】Per Se 本身、本質
per se rule 當然違法

Microsoft Case之多元介面法律問題 世新大學法律系紀教授振清: "最後，關於「合理原則」(Rule of Reason)和「當然違法」(Illegal Per Se)的問題，「合理原則」是美國最高法院在1890年休曼法制定後審理反托拉斯法之訴訟案件所運用的分析方式，例如在獨占的情形它要去算市場占有率，市 場占有率現在學者常用的在20％以下是安全區（Safety Zone），尤其是美國市場那麼大，競爭者那麼多。因此第一個先算它的市場力量，但如果某些行為是一而再、再而三反覆的，且一直在危害著市場經濟效益和競 爭效能的，就把它提升為「當然違法」。「Per Se」這個拉丁語諺就是「本身、本質」，有些排他性交易、搭售行為等慢慢經過判例的演變，就進入到Illegal Per Se或有人叫做Per Se Rule。在我國公平交易法第19條有關不公平競爭的方法、行為的規定，就有一些Per Se Rule的影子在，按這些行為類型我們把它條文化。"

【辭典】vacate、reverse、dismiss

【辭典】vacate、reverse、dismiss

應該是這樣吧，我覺得。

FindLaw ：vacate 廢棄，上級法院廢棄下級法院的判決，且不做任何的“判決”，原告應重新提起訴訟。
1: to make void: 'annul' 'set aside'
Example: vacate a lower court order
2 a: to make vacant
b: to give up the occupancy of: to vacate an office, post, or tenancy"

law.com Law Dictionary: vacate v.
1) for a judge to set aside or annul an order or judgment which he/she finds was improper.
2) to move out of real estate and cease occupancy.

FindLaw ：reverse 推翻或改判，上級法院推翻下級法院的判決，並且做出相反判決。
to set aside or make void (a judgment or decision) by a contrary decision (compare affirm): to reverse a decision or judgment
Example: for these reasons, we reverse"

FindLaw：dismiss 不受理或撤銷，
1: to remove from position or service
Example: dismissed the employee
2: to bring about or order the dismissal of (an action)
Example: the suit was dismissed: to bring about or order a dismissal
Example: the plaintiff moved to dismiss
【8月23日更新】
例如，當法院覺得沒有 jurisdiction 的時候，就用不受理：Because the district court’s initial order did not address Brinkmann’s invalidity counterclaim, this court determined that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal.


見此判例：
In Transonic Systems, Inc. v. Non-Invasive Medical Technologies Corporation (No. 04-1546; July 25, 2005), the Federal Circuit reverses a district court's claim construction, and vacates a judgment of non-infringement and a prosecution history estoppel ruling.

claim construction 使用 reverse ；而 judgement 使用 vacate 。

先前還曾看過臺灣的判決，它裡面的用字是：行政處分用“撤銷”；法院的判決則用“廢棄”。




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

這幾個字我常分不清楚vacate、reverse、dismiss，就算查了線上的法律字典，分不清楚，它們在看判決時很常出現。有哪位前輩知道這些字是什麼意思的，請您不吝分享（ides13@gmail.com），謝謝。

【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

【判例】摘要影響claim construction的判例

HILL-ROM v KINETIC CONCEPTS

摘要影響claim construction的判例

============================================
參考：一

【判例】背景技術用於claim construction

判決流水號03-1408.pdf
記載於說明書中的先前技藝，可以作為內部証據，用於claim construction。