l 結論
臺灣的制度與美國的制度不同，在臺灣的專利實務中，不能夠用「先申請後公開」的前案當作進步性的拒絕理由，但在美國可以用「先申請後公開」的前案當作進步性的理由。此外，請留意103(c)另規定有但書，如果「先申請後公開」的前案與本發明申請案的擁有人相同時，則就不能夠用「先申請後公開」的前案當作進步性的拒絕理由。
l 關於法條的規定，請參考103(a)的條文
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negative by the manner in which the invention was made.
法條中使用“in section 102”的用語，表示其包含102(e)的情況。可以再參考MPEP 2141.01 中的記載「A 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is based on 35 U.S.C. 102(a), 102(b), 102(e), etc. depending on the type of prior art reference used and its publication or issue date.」。
l 關於法條的規定，請參考103(c)的條文
(c)(1) Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under one or more of subsections (e), (f), and (g) of section 102 of this title, shall not preclude patentability under this section where the subject matter and the claimed invention were, at the time the claimed invention was made, owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.
因此，依據103(c)的規定，於發明當時適用102(e)的前案（亦即「先申請後公開」的前案）與本案被同一人所擁有時，102(e)的前案不能夠當作進步性的拒絕理由。
l 假設所引用的前案及本案的申請日優先權日如下
| 前案 | 專利號或公開號 | 公開日 | 申請日 | 發明人 |
| A | 12-2008 | Jun 21, 2004 | ||
| B | 01-2006 | Jun 29, 2005 |
| 本案 | 專利申請號 | 優先日 | 申請日 | 發明人 |
| C | 2005/7/7 | 2006/7/7 |
由於本案的優先權日晚於前案A及B的申請日，因此依據103(a)的規定，能夠用依據102(e)的前案來核駁本案的進步性。此外，由於前案與本案的擁有人不相同，不符合103(c)的例外條件。因此，我方認為審查員所引用的前案是適格的前案。
l 美國最高法院的判例
關於此問題，還可以參考美國最高法院的判例「Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Brenner, 382 U.S. 252, 147 USPQ 429 (1965)」，請參閱附件。其中記載：
The Commissioner, relying chiefly on Alexander Milburn Co. v. Davis-Bournonville Co., 270 U.S. 390, contends that when a patent is issued, the disclosures contained in the patent become a part of the prior art as of the time the application was filed, not, as petitioners contend, at the time the patent is issued. In that case a patent was held invalid because, at the time it was applied for, there was already pending an application which completely and adequately described the invention. In holding that the issuance of a patent based on the first application barred the valid issuance of a patent based on the second application, Mr. Justice Holmes, speaking for the Court, said, "The delays of the Patent Office ought not to cut down the effect of what has been done. . . . [The first applicant] had taken steps that would make it public as soon as the Patent Office did its work, although, of course, amendments might be required of him before the end could be reached. We see no reason in the words or policy of the law for allowing [the second applicant] to profit by the delay . . . ." At p. 401.
大法官認為，說明書所揭示內容，變成前案的效力是發生於申請當時而不是公開時間點，智財局延遲公開申請案的內容，不應影響已完成的動作，且沒有好的理由讓第二個申請人受益於智財局因行政作業所造成的公開延遲。
沒有留言:
張貼留言