混合類別型請求項

混合類別型請求項   Mixed Claim Types

撰寫請求項時，應留意於此請求項中是否同時記載了“裝置限制條件”及“方法限制條件”，其有可能會被視為不明確。

Manual of Patent Examination Procedure. § 2173.05(p)(II) (1999) ("A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.")

MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II) 記載有：單一的請求項同時請求“裝置”及“使用該裝置的方法步驟”，係為不明確，不符合 35 U.S.C. 112 第二段規定。

The November 2005 IPXL Holdings v. Amazon CAFC ruling found claim 25 in the notorious Amazon 1-click patent (6,149,055) indefinite.

25. The system of claim 2 [including an input means] wherein the predicted transaction information comprises both a transaction type and transaction parameters associated with that transaction type, and the user uses the input means to either change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction type and transaction parameters.

The problem was that the claim could have been read either as a system claim or method claim.

Thus, it is unclear whether infringement of claim 25 occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information or uses the input means to accept a displayed transaction.

上述請求項的問題為，此請求項可以被解讀成為系統請求項、或是方法請求項。因此，是在有人創造一個能夠允許使用者改變預測的交易資訊或接受所顯示之交易的系統時，發生侵權請求項25行為；還是當使用者實際使用輸入裝置改變預測的交易資訊或使用輸入裝置接受所顯示之交易時，發生侵權請求項25行為？關於此點不明確。

心得：

〉●從文言上來看是可以解譯成「當使用者實際使用輸入裝置改變預測的交易資訊或使用輸入裝置接受所顯示之交易時的系統」，從這一點來看，其實一點也不會不明確。不知為何這種解譯方式不被接受？

〉●想要使用“功能限制條件”來限定“裝置”的請求項時應小心並再確認這樣的撰寫方式，是否會被解讀為混合類別型請求項。

〉●似乎僅需將原請求項修改成「the system allows the user to use the input means to」，這樣就不會被視為不明確了，差幾個字就差那麼多難以想像。建議以後撰寫請求項時，多多使用“用以”、“藉以使”等用語。

〉●不過，上述的情況和 MPEP 2106所記載的內容，兩者間滿容易混淆

MPEP 2106 

For example, a claimed invention may be a combination of devices that appear to be directed to a machine and one or more steps of the functions performed by the machine. Such instances of mixed attributes, although potentially confusing as to which category of patentable subject matter the claim belongs, does not affect the analysis to be performed by USPTO personnel. Note that an apparatus claim with process steps is not classified as a "hybrid" claim; instead, it is simply an apparatus claim including functional limitations. See, e.g., R.A.C.C. Indus. v. Stun-Tech, Inc., 178 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (unpublished).

應注意，具有方法步驟的裝置請求項，不被分類為混合類別型請求項，相反地，它僅是一種包含功能限制條件的裝置請求項。

心得：

〉●要分清楚此兩者間的界線，也許可以參考The Patent Prospector的意見。

The cutting edge for an non-statutory dual-matter claim is whether the claim could be reasonably read "either-or" - interpretable within two of the four categories of patentable subject matter: "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" (35 U.S.C. §101). Another viewpoint would be to answer the question: what is crucial, specifically novel, about the claim that merits its patentability? If the answer lies in a different claim type than the claim nominally is, the claim is invalid.

另一觀點為回答下述問題：使請求項維持其可專利性，什麼限制條件是重要的，尤其是針對新穎性而言？如果所得答案為此請求項落入了不同於它名目上的類別時，則此請求項無效。