【101】【112】關於enablement requirement和utility requirement

【101】【112】關於enablement requirement和utility requirement

今天不小心看到一篇糾正我錯誤觀念的判例，關於enablement requirement和utility requirement。好久以前，曾看過一篇文章提到utility requirement不是很重要，但看來似乎不是喔！

試想“必要元件”，這個在臺灣使用的詞，表示claim必須限定到發明能夠“實施”的程度，那麼美國呢？相對於臺灣使用的“必要元件”，你覺得應該是屬於“enablement requirement”還是“utility requirement”？

PROCESS CONTROL CORPORATION, v. HYDRECLAIM CORPORATION

Lack of enablement and absence of utility are closely related grounds of unpatentability. See  Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp. , 724 F.2d 951, 956, 220 USPQ 592, 596 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 requires that the specification adequately discloses to one skilled in the relevant art how to make, or in the case of a process, how to carry out, the claimed invention without undue experimentation.  See Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S , 108 F.3d 1361, 1365, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101 mandates that any patentable invention be useful and, accordingly, the subject matter of the claim must be operable. See  Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. , 977 F.2d 1555, 1571, 24 USPQ2d 1401, 1412 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If a patent claim fails to meet the utility requirement because it is not useful or operative, then it also fails to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement.

112的enablement requirement要求說明書適當的揭示，以在不需要undue experimentation的情況下，使one skilled in the relevant art能夠知道how to make, or in the case of a process, how to carry out, the claimed invention。相對於此，
101的utility requirement則是要求任何可專利的發明必須useful，因此其claim的主題必須是operable。當不符合utility requirement時，同時也不能滿足the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement。

In Raytheon , we held certain process claims invalid, stating
[b]ecause it is for the invention as claimed that enablement must clearly exist, and because the impossible cannot be enabled, a claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under § 112. Moreover, when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either § 101 or § 112 of 35 U.S.C.

上段模模糊糊的，這段更清楚了，包含一個limitation impossible to meet是不符合112，而缺少一個a means for accomplishing an unattainable result是不符合101。

PS：以前我從來沒有想過這會和101有關，算是糾正了我的觀念吧。