99年度民專訴字第150號
臺灣法院對於是否適用均等論所提出的五個要件。
1.按被控侵權物品落入申請專利之均等範圍，必須符合：
(1)被控侵權物品與申請專利範圍之差異部分，非專利發明之本質部分，
(2)被控侵權物品經換置之差異部分，仍可達成專利發明之目的，並可產生同一之作用效果，
(3)被控侵權物品之差異部分於製造之時點所能容易思及，
(4)被控侵權物品之差異部分不可與專利發明申請時之公知技術同一，或為公知技術
所能輕易推想，
(5)被控侵權物品於專利發明申請程序中並無遭有意識地自申請專利範圍中排除之特別情事存在。
如被控侵權物品無法符合上開5 個要件其中之一，即不能認為被控侵權物品落入申請專利之均等範圍。
6/14/2011
6/13/2011
HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS & DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS & DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
是均等成立，且先前技術阻卻成立，不侵權。
^^^^^^^^^^
此處所謂的「均等成立」，不是代表真的「均等成立」，僅是一種假設。
要推翻一個理論，有時從正面的論證很難著手或說服人，
此時，可先假設它成立，再利用反面的論證方式，推翻此假設。
亦即，預先假設均等成立，再利用「先前技術阻卻」來測試假設的均等範圍。
僅有通過「先前技術阻卻」的測試，此時“真的”均等才成立。
什麼是「均等」？這是很難有一個統一的客觀的答案，
法官嘗試著創造各種的方法，來儘可能地找出一個客觀的範圍。
從積極的角度，亦即使用「function, way, result」或insubstantial differences 」
等方法，將文字範圍擴大至均等範圍。但，擴大後的範圍，適當嗎？
而且，每個人擴大後的範圍也可能不一樣啊，從多個均等範圍，
如何選一個適當的均等範圍？
因此，法官再創造出「先前技術阻卻」或「禁反言」的方法，
從消極面的角度，來確認「擴大後的範圍」是否合理；或者是否能夠「擴大範圍」。
基本上，這些都是方法論，用來決定是否適用均等的方法，僅有通過這些方法
的範圍，才是適當的均等範圍，此時均等侵權才能夠成立。
請留意「HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS」的關鍵字。
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1029.html
It is well settled law that a patentee cannot assert a range of equivalents that encompasses the prior art. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assocs., 904 F.2d 677, 683, 14 USPQ2d 1942, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To test this limit, the notion of a hypothetical claim may be useful. Id. at 684, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. A hypothetical claim may be constructed to literally cover the accused device. Id. If such a claim would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, then the patentee has overreached, and the accused device is noninfringing as a matter of law. Id. at 683-84, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
專利侵害鑑定要點第 44 頁
(三) 判斷「先前技術阻卻」之注意事項
1.主張「先前技術阻卻」有利於被告，故應由被告負舉證責任。若被告未主張「先前
技術阻卻」，他人不得主動提供相關先前技術資料，以判斷待鑑定對象是否適用「
先前技術阻卻」。
The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
http://www.bakerbotts.com/64/infocenter/publications/detail.aspx?id=1974
"Hypothetical claim analysis" is a methodology for assisting in the determination as to whether the patentee, in asserting a right to exclude under the doctrine of equivalents, has exceeded the bounds of the third limitation and impermissibly ensnared the prior art. Typically, a "hypothetical" claim is drafted to read on the accused device or system. This is called a "hypothetical claim" because it has not been issued within a patent – it is an assumption. The next question is whether this hypothetical claim would have been allowed to issue in a patent by the Patent Office (i.e., is the hypothetical claim patentable over the prior art?). If so, then the doctrine of equivalents would apply – the prior art would not preclude assertion of a range of equivalents to cover the accused product.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/comments/99_1018.htm
HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS - DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS - OBVIOUSNESS - INVALIDITY - TEMPLATE PANEL
是均等成立，且先前技術阻卻成立，不侵權。
^^^^^^^^^^
此處所謂的「均等成立」，不是代表真的「均等成立」，僅是一種假設。
要推翻一個理論，有時從正面的論證很難著手或說服人，
此時，可先假設它成立，再利用反面的論證方式，推翻此假設。
亦即，預先假設均等成立，再利用「先前技術阻卻」來測試假設的均等範圍。
僅有通過「先前技術阻卻」的測試，此時“真的”均等才成立。
什麼是「均等」？這是很難有一個統一的客觀的答案，
法官嘗試著創造各種的方法，來儘可能地找出一個客觀的範圍。
從積極的角度，亦即使用「function, way, result」或insubstantial differences 」
等方法，將文字範圍擴大至均等範圍。但，擴大後的範圍，適當嗎？
而且，每個人擴大後的範圍也可能不一樣啊，從多個均等範圍，
如何選一個適當的均等範圍？
因此，法官再創造出「先前技術阻卻」或「禁反言」的方法，
從消極面的角度，來確認「擴大後的範圍」是否合理；或者是否能夠「擴大範圍」。
基本上，這些都是方法論，用來決定是否適用均等的方法，僅有通過這些方法
的範圍，才是適當的均等範圍，此時均等侵權才能夠成立。
請留意「HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS」的關鍵字。
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1029.html
It is well settled law that a patentee cannot assert a range of equivalents that encompasses the prior art. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assocs., 904 F.2d 677, 683, 14 USPQ2d 1942, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To test this limit, the notion of a hypothetical claim may be useful. Id. at 684, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. A hypothetical claim may be constructed to literally cover the accused device. Id. If such a claim would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, then the patentee has overreached, and the accused device is noninfringing as a matter of law. Id. at 683-84, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
專利侵害鑑定要點第 44 頁
(三) 判斷「先前技術阻卻」之注意事項
1.主張「先前技術阻卻」有利於被告，故應由被告負舉證責任。若被告未主張「先前
技術阻卻」，他人不得主動提供相關先前技術資料，以判斷待鑑定對象是否適用「
先前技術阻卻」。
The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
http://www.bakerbotts.com/64/infocenter/publications/detail.aspx?id=1974
"Hypothetical claim analysis" is a methodology for assisting in the determination as to whether the patentee, in asserting a right to exclude under the doctrine of equivalents, has exceeded the bounds of the third limitation and impermissibly ensnared the prior art. Typically, a "hypothetical" claim is drafted to read on the accused device or system. This is called a "hypothetical claim" because it has not been issued within a patent – it is an assumption. The next question is whether this hypothetical claim would have been allowed to issue in a patent by the Patent Office (i.e., is the hypothetical claim patentable over the prior art?). If so, then the doctrine of equivalents would apply – the prior art would not preclude assertion of a range of equivalents to cover the accused product.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/comments/99_1018.htm
HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS - DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS - OBVIOUSNESS - INVALIDITY - TEMPLATE PANEL
6/01/2011
委任狀的簽署人
委任狀的簽署人
(1) The statement may be signed by a person in the
organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the
organization. An officer (president, vice-president, secretary, or
treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the
organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is
acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. A person
having a title (manager, director, administrator, general counsel) that
does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is
not presumed to be an officer of the assignee or to have authority to
sign the statement on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney from
the inventors in an organization to a practitioner to prosecute a patent
application does not make the practitioner an official of an assignee or
empower the practitioner to sign the statement on behalf of the assignee.
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/324.html
MPEP Section 324, Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action
V. PARTY WHO MUST SIGN
(A) The submission may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization. 37 CFR 3.73(b)(2)(ii). An officer (chief executive officer, president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. Modifications of these basic titles are acceptable, such as vice-president for sales, executive vice-president, assistant treasurer, vice-chairman of the board of directors. In foreign countries, a person who holds the title "Manager" or "Director" is normally an officer and is presumed to have the authority to sign on behalf of the organization. A person having a title (administrator, general counsel) that does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is not presumed to have authority to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney (37 CFR 1.32(b)(4)) to a patent practitioner to prosecute a patent application executed by the applicant or the assignee of the entire interest does not make that practitioner an official of an assignee or empower the practitioner to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/con/files/cons046.htm
(1) The statement may be signed by a person in the
organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the
organization. An officer (president, vice-president, secretary, or
treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the
organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is
acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. A person
having a title (manager, director, administrator, general counsel) that
does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is
not presumed to be an officer of the assignee or to have authority to
sign the statement on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney from
the inventors in an organization to a practitioner to prosecute a patent
application does not make the practitioner an official of an assignee or
empower the practitioner to sign the statement on behalf of the assignee.
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/324.html
MPEP Section 324, Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action
V. PARTY WHO MUST SIGN
(A) The submission may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization. 37 CFR 3.73(b)(2)(ii). An officer (chief executive officer, president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. Modifications of these basic titles are acceptable, such as vice-president for sales, executive vice-president, assistant treasurer, vice-chairman of the board of directors. In foreign countries, a person who holds the title "Manager" or "Director" is normally an officer and is presumed to have the authority to sign on behalf of the organization. A person having a title (administrator, general counsel) that does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is not presumed to have authority to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney (37 CFR 1.32(b)(4)) to a patent practitioner to prosecute a patent application executed by the applicant or the assignee of the entire interest does not make that practitioner an official of an assignee or empower the practitioner to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee.
5/22/2011
一些專利法之中、英、日文版的連結。
在日本特許廳找日文特許法，還真不容易找到。
不過倒是找到了各國專利法的日文版。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/shiryou/s_sonota/fips/mokuji.htm
另外也找到一本很好的電子書，
「工業所有権法(産業財産権法)逐条解説〔第18版〕 2010.3.18」
裡面也有法條。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/hourei/kakokai/pdf/cikujyoukaisetu/all.pdf
實體書市價應該要8800日圓吧，身邊有在book off買的中古書，版本比較舊，也要4000日圓。
日文特許法：
http://www.houko.com/00/01/S34/121.HTM
日本所有法條的英譯，應該在這裡找到得：
http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/
各國專利法的中英文版：
http://www.cnpat.com/law3.htm
其他相關連結。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/shiryou/hourei/kakokai/cikujyoukaisetu.htm
http://www.jpo.go.jp/index/houritsu_jouyaku.html
不過倒是找到了各國專利法的日文版。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/shiryou/s_sonota/fips/mokuji.htm
另外也找到一本很好的電子書，
「工業所有権法(産業財産権法)逐条解説〔第18版〕 2010.3.18」
裡面也有法條。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/hourei/kakokai/pdf/cikujyoukaisetu/all.pdf
實體書市價應該要8800日圓吧，身邊有在book off買的中古書，版本比較舊，也要4000日圓。
日文特許法：
http://www.houko.com/00/01/S34/121.HTM
日本所有法條的英譯，應該在這裡找到得：
http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/
各國專利法的中英文版：
http://www.cnpat.com/law3.htm
其他相關連結。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/shiryou/hourei/kakokai/cikujyoukaisetu.htm
http://www.jpo.go.jp/index/houritsu_jouyaku.html
4/29/2011
進步性的答辯時，新內容會不會構成新事項？
於進步性的答辯時，在意見陳述書中增加實驗數據、或新的描述，顯示發明之功效，不會構成New Matter。
此外，為了舉證發明的功效，還能夠向美國專利局提出「暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action」，以“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。
「暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action」
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/search?q=%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97+%E5%BB%B6%E9%95%B7
日本去年七月的判例。
http://www.hanketsu.jiii.or.jp/hanketsu/jsp/hatumeisi/news/201104news.pdf
MPEP
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_716_02_f.htm#sect716.02f
716.02(f) Advantages Disclosed or Inherent
The totality of the record must be considered when determining whether a claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, evidence and arguments directed to advantages not disclosed in the specification cannot be disregarded. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the purported advantage of placement of a selective catalytic reduction catalyst in the bag retainer of an apparatus for controlling emissions was not disclosed in the specification, evidence and arguments rebutting the conclusion that such placement was a matter of "design choice" should have been considered as part of the totality of the record. "We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant's evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution." 66 F.3d at 299, 36 USPQ2d at 1095.). See also In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 928, 142 USPQ 158, 161 (CCPA 1964) (evidence that claimed compound minimized side effects of hypotensive activity must be considered because this undisclosed property would inherently flow from disclosed use as tranquilizer); Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103, 104 - 05 (Bd. App. 1981) (evidence relating to initially undisclosed relative toxicity of claimed pharmaceutical compound must be considered).
The specification need not disclose proportions or values as critical for applicants to present evidence showing the proportions or values to be critical. In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 607, 170 USPQ 213, 220 (CCPA 1971).
此外，為了舉證發明的功效，還能夠向美國專利局提出「暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action」，以“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。
「暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action」
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/search?q=%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97+%E5%BB%B6%E9%95%B7
日本去年七月的判例。
http://www.hanketsu.jiii.or.jp/hanketsu/jsp/hatumeisi/news/201104news.pdf
解決課題及び解決手段が提示されているか否かは、『発明の効果』がどのようなものであるかと不即不離の関係があるといえる。そのような点を考慮すると、本願当初明細書において明らかにしていなかった『発明の効果』について、進歩性の判断において、出願の後に補充した実験結果等を参酌することは、出願人と第三者との公平を害する結果を招来するので、特段の事情のない限り許されないというべきである。
他方、進歩性の判断において、『発明の効果』を出願の後に補充した実験結果等を考慮することが許されないのは、上記の特許制度の趣旨、出願人と第三者との公平等の要請に基づくものであるから、当初明細書に、『発明の効果』に関し、何らの記載がない場合はさておき、当業者において『発明の効果』を認識できる程度の記載がある場合やこれを推論できる記載がある場合には、記載の範囲を超えない限り、出願の後に補充した実験結果等を参酌することは許されるというべきであり、許されるか否かは、前記公平の観点に立って判断すべきである。」
MPEP
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_716_02_f.htm#sect716.02f
716.02(f) Advantages Disclosed or Inherent
The totality of the record must be considered when determining whether a claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, evidence and arguments directed to advantages not disclosed in the specification cannot be disregarded. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the purported advantage of placement of a selective catalytic reduction catalyst in the bag retainer of an apparatus for controlling emissions was not disclosed in the specification, evidence and arguments rebutting the conclusion that such placement was a matter of "design choice" should have been considered as part of the totality of the record. "We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant's evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution." 66 F.3d at 299, 36 USPQ2d at 1095.). See also In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 928, 142 USPQ 158, 161 (CCPA 1964) (evidence that claimed compound minimized side effects of hypotensive activity must be considered because this undisclosed property would inherently flow from disclosed use as tranquilizer); Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103, 104 - 05 (Bd. App. 1981) (evidence relating to initially undisclosed relative toxicity of claimed pharmaceutical compound must be considered).
The specification need not disclose proportions or values as critical for applicants to present evidence showing the proportions or values to be critical. In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 607, 170 USPQ 213, 220 (CCPA 1971).
1/03/2011
"by others" 和 "by another" 都應該解釋成 "by a different inventive entity"
"by others" 和 "by another" 都應該解釋成 "by a different inventive entity"
不過，這個問題我也困擾很久，不太明白為啥法條上要用兩個不同的字，一般而言，如法條、判決等法律文件中，不同的用字要用不同的方式解釋，而這兩個字卻應該是要用相同的方式解釋。
102(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent;
102(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language;
MPEP 2132 (III)
III. "BY OTHERS"
"Others" Means Any Combination of Authors or Inventors Different Than the Inventive Entity
The term "others" in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be "by others." This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge and use. Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) "would negate the one year [grace] period afforded under § 102(b)." In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).
MPEP 2136.04
IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE INVENTIVE ENTITY, THE REFERENCE IS "BY ANOTHER"
"Another" means other than applicants, In re Land, 368 F.2d 866, 151 USPQ 621 (CCPA 1966), in other words, a different inventive entity. The inventive entity is different if not all inventors are the same. The fact that the application and reference have one or more inventors in common is immaterial. Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board found that the patent was "by another" and thus could be used in a 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103 rejection of the application.).
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/2771
Froggy
102(a)有強調public known or used，因此需要有複數的others。102(e)強調的是有一個他人先申請，所以只要another。雖然法條上如此定義，但是申請實務上，應該是一樣的，所以MPEP對another與others的解讀，應該是完全相同。
不過，這個問題我也困擾很久，不太明白為啥法條上要用兩個不同的字，一般而言，如法條、判決等法律文件中，不同的用字要用不同的方式解釋，而這兩個字卻應該是要用相同的方式解釋。
102(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent;
102(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language;
MPEP 2132 (III)
III. "BY OTHERS"
"Others" Means Any Combination of Authors or Inventors Different Than the Inventive Entity
The term "others" in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be "by others." This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge and use. Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) "would negate the one year [grace] period afforded under § 102(b)." In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).
MPEP 2136.04
IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE INVENTIVE ENTITY, THE REFERENCE IS "BY ANOTHER"
"Another" means other than applicants, In re Land, 368 F.2d 866, 151 USPQ 621 (CCPA 1966), in other words, a different inventive entity. The inventive entity is different if not all inventors are the same. The fact that the application and reference have one or more inventors in common is immaterial. Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board found that the patent was "by another" and thus could be used in a 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103 rejection of the application.).
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/2771
Froggy
102(a)有強調public known or used，因此需要有複數的others。102(e)強調的是有一個他人先申請，所以只要another。雖然法條上如此定義，但是申請實務上，應該是一樣的，所以MPEP對another與others的解讀，應該是完全相同。
12/24/2010
The date of a "patented"
The date of a "patented"，是指已公告且能夠執行專利權的日子。
The date of a "patented" event under 102(a) and 102(b)
is the fate that the patent rights become enforceable,
i.e., the date the sovereign formally bestows patent rights to the applicant,
if the patent document is accessible to the public when granted.
The date of a "patented" event under 102(a) and 102(b)
is the fate that the patent rights become enforceable,
i.e., the date the sovereign formally bestows patent rights to the applicant,
if the patent document is accessible to the public when granted.
12/15/2010
小小的改善，亦具有進步性。
在一個高度發展的技術領域，一個小小的改善，亦具有進步性。
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9609.html
Crowded Art: This refers to an area of technology in which there have been a large number of prior inventions. In a crowded art, it takes less of an advancement to obtain a valid patent. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that there can be no further patenting in that art.
http://www.dallasbar.com/members/headnotes_showarticle.asp?article_id=1447&issue_id=131
For example, in Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., the District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied summary judgment and found that “KSR does not automatically call for a ruling of invalidity unless the patent challenged is a major development in the art” because even “narrow improvements in a crowded art” continue to be patentable.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/matters/matters-9609.html
Crowded Art: This refers to an area of technology in which there have been a large number of prior inventions. In a crowded art, it takes less of an advancement to obtain a valid patent. Otherwise, one would have to conclude that there can be no further patenting in that art.
http://www.dallasbar.com/members/headnotes_showarticle.asp?article_id=1447&issue_id=131
For example, in Gemtron Corp. v. Saint-Gobain Corp., the District Court for the Western District of Michigan denied summary judgment and found that “KSR does not automatically call for a ruling of invalidity unless the patent challenged is a major development in the art” because even “narrow improvements in a crowded art” continue to be patentable.
9/16/2010
Markush claim及“擇一用語”
Markush claim及“擇一用語”
當使用 Markush claim時，若審查員找到前案揭示A， 即可不必審B~G而直接核駁整個 Markush claim。Markush claim其實是一種“個人創造“的上位用語，當下位被揭露後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“不具新穎性”。當下位被認為顯而易知後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“顯而易知”。
個人認為，當使用 Markush claim時，就可推定申請人已認為 「A B C D E F and G」之間，對本領域具有通常知識者，是可互相替代的。因此，於審查中，審查員甚至可以推定B~G 為顯而易知並加以核駁。
當然，還是可以進行答辯，只是要克服前述的“推定”，申請人需要花比較多的舉證責任，證明B~G的進步性。答辯方式可以比照下位被揭露的情況，進行答辯。
因此，建議若一開始就認為下位概念「A」、「B C and D」及「E F and G」」之間是不可互相替代的，互相具有進步性，希望審查員個別進行檢索及審查，就應該要分三個claim寫。當然這會有「單一性」的問題。
此外，不單純是Markush claim，使用“or”用語的情況也適用。
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/205/205.F2d.185.5935.html
If on examination of a generic Markush type claim, it be found that the applicant has included one or more members known to be old in the art for the same purpose as in the applicant's invention, the group in its entirety must fail of recognition in exactly the same manner as would have been the case had the group of elements of the claim been identified by a single term. In such contingency, a formula of lesser scope may be invoked, provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group. In re Hass et al., supra.3
答辯的重點。
provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group.
由於申請人一開始就使用Markush claim代表A B C and D具有a first common quality。因此最好的答辯理由是「B C and D」的具有a second common quality different from the first common quality。
個人認為就是因為申請人一開始使用Markush claim，才讓審查員被教導成A B C and D間具有common quality，能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，如此才會變得較難答辯。審查員少了找出common quality的舉證責任。所以，假如一開始申請人初步判斷A B C and D間可能會被認為具有common quality能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，就要刻意的閃躲，即使自己已認為有common quality，也要刻意地用沒有common quality的語氣來撰寫，清楚的表明申請人從不認為A B C and D間具有common quality，並分三個claim寫或分三個案子申請，這樣子後續的答辯會較輕鬆。
當然，現實與理想，相差很遠，個人想說的僅是理論，
其他，還可以試著用如下極端的方式答辯，亦即雖然申請人使用Markush claim，但A B C and D間卻沒有common quality，亦可以直接承認誤用（當然誤用兩字不必要寫於理由書中），直接向審查員說明A B C and D間卻沒有common quality。但「B C and D」的具有a common quality而且是patentable的。
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0800_803_02.htm
MPEP
This subsection deals with Markush-type generic claims which recite a plurality of alternatively usable substances or members. In most cases, a recitation by enumeration is used because there is no appropriate or true generic language. A Markush-type claim may include independent and distinct inventions. This is true where two or more of the members are so unrelated and diverse that a prior art reference anticipating the claim with respect to one of the members would not render the claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to the other member(s). In applications containing a Markush-type claim that encompasses at least two independent or distinct inventions, the examiner may require a provisional election of a single species prior to examination on the merits. An examiner should set forth a requirement for election of a single disclosed species in a Markush-type claim using form paragraph 8.01 when claims limited to species are present or using form paragraph 8.02 when no species claims are present. See MPEP § 808.01(a) and § 809.02(a). Following election, the Markush-type claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability. If the Markush-type claim is not allowable **, the provisional election will be given effect and examination will be limited to the Markush-type claim and claims to the elected species, with claims drawn to species patentably distinct from the elected species held withdrawn from further consideration.
(Landis Mechanics of Patent Claim Drafting Textbook, Page 6-9). Where claiming alternative compounds, they must not be "patentably distinct" under present Office practice; otherwise, they need only have a common property useful in the combination claimed.
當使用 Markush claim時，若審查員找到前案揭示A， 即可不必審B~G而直接核駁整個 Markush claim。Markush claim其實是一種“個人創造“的上位用語，當下位被揭露後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“不具新穎性”。當下位被認為顯而易知後，這個“個人創造“的上位用語即可被視為“顯而易知”。
個人認為，當使用 Markush claim時，就可推定申請人已認為 「A B C D E F and G」之間，對本領域具有通常知識者，是可互相替代的。因此，於審查中，審查員甚至可以推定B~G 為顯而易知並加以核駁。
當然，還是可以進行答辯，只是要克服前述的“推定”，申請人需要花比較多的舉證責任，證明B~G的進步性。答辯方式可以比照下位被揭露的情況，進行答辯。
因此，建議若一開始就認為下位概念「A」、「B C and D」及「E F and G」」之間是不可互相替代的，互相具有進步性，希望審查員個別進行檢索及審查，就應該要分三個claim寫。當然這會有「單一性」的問題。
此外，不單純是Markush claim，使用“or”用語的情況也適用。
http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/205/205.F2d.185.5935.html
If on examination of a generic Markush type claim, it be found that the applicant has included one or more members known to be old in the art for the same purpose as in the applicant's invention, the group in its entirety must fail of recognition in exactly the same manner as would have been the case had the group of elements of the claim been identified by a single term. In such contingency, a formula of lesser scope may be invoked, provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group. In re Hass et al., supra.3
答辯的重點。
provided that the remaining members of the group have a common quality which is distinctive from the characteristics of the major group, and which itself imparts patentable merit to the subgroup over the generic group.
【2010年10月20日更新】
以「金,銀,銅,鐵或錫」為例，若找到的前案為「鐵」，此時申請人希望將其限縮至「金」為例。
「a formula of lesser scope」是指「金」的範圍。
「the remaining members of the group」相對於「the major group」，「the remaining members」 加「the major group」等於「the group」。「the remaining members of the group」中，「the remaining members」是指「金」、「the group」是指「金,銀,銅,鐵或錫」。「the major group」是指「銀,銅,鐵或錫」。
「the subgroup」是指「金」，「the generic group」是指「金,銀,銅,鐵或錫」。
「the characteristics of 」和「 a common quality 」個人認為大致上同義，僅是法官希望用不同的用語來表示不同的範圍。「characteristics 」可為導電性，而「a common quality」可為不易氧化的性質。
由於申請人一開始就使用Markush claim代表A B C and D具有a first common quality。因此最好的答辯理由是「B C and D」的具有a second common quality different from the first common quality。
個人認為就是因為申請人一開始使用Markush claim，才讓審查員被教導成A B C and D間具有common quality，能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，如此才會變得較難答辯。審查員少了找出common quality的舉證責任。所以，假如一開始申請人初步判斷A B C and D間可能會被認為具有common quality能夠發揮相同的功能、達成相同的功效，就要刻意的閃躲，即使自己已認為有common quality，也要刻意地用沒有common quality的語氣來撰寫，清楚的表明申請人從不認為A B C and D間具有common quality，並分三個claim寫或分三個案子申請，這樣子後續的答辯會較輕鬆。
當然，現實與理想，相差很遠，個人想說的僅是理論，
其他，還可以試著用如下極端的方式答辯，亦即雖然申請人使用Markush claim，但A B C and D間卻沒有common quality，亦可以直接承認誤用（當然誤用兩字不必要寫於理由書中），直接向審查員說明A B C and D間卻沒有common quality。但「B C and D」的具有a common quality而且是patentable的。
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0800_803_02.htm
MPEP
This subsection deals with Markush-type generic claims which recite a plurality of alternatively usable substances or members. In most cases, a recitation by enumeration is used because there is no appropriate or true generic language. A Markush-type claim may include independent and distinct inventions. This is true where two or more of the members are so unrelated and diverse that a prior art reference anticipating the claim with respect to one of the members would not render the claim obvious under 35 U.S.C. 103 with respect to the other member(s). In applications containing a Markush-type claim that encompasses at least two independent or distinct inventions, the examiner may require a provisional election of a single species prior to examination on the merits. An examiner should set forth a requirement for election of a single disclosed species in a Markush-type claim using form paragraph 8.01 when claims limited to species are present or using form paragraph 8.02 when no species claims are present. See MPEP § 808.01(a) and § 809.02(a). Following election, the Markush-type claim will be examined fully with respect to the elected species and further to the extent necessary to determine patentability. If the Markush-type claim is not allowable **, the provisional election will be given effect and examination will be limited to the Markush-type claim and claims to the elected species, with claims drawn to species patentably distinct from the elected species held withdrawn from further consideration.
9/04/2010
請求項的範圍能夠包含不可操作的實施例。
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/1880
claim的範圍是可以包含inoperative的實施例。
"From the point of view of patent laws, there is no requirement that the entire range covered by a claim must be operable. As long as a reasonable range that is covered by a claim is operable, the claim complies with the requierment of the law."
Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.
2164.08(b) Inoperative Subject Matter
The presence of inoperative embodiments within the scope of a claim does not necessarily render a claim nonenabled. The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (prophetic examples do not make the disclosure nonenabling).
請求項的範圍中包含有不可操作的實施例，不必然會使請求項為無法致能。其標準在於：該行業者是否能夠判斷，於該領域中僅僅儘平常所需之努力的情況下，哪些實施例會被認為無法操作或可操作。
「with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.」這一句還真難翻譯。不懂得改成這樣會不會比較看得懂？算不算對？「with expenditure of effort which(expenditure) is no more than normally required in the art.」
claim的範圍是可以包含inoperative的實施例。
"From the point of view of patent laws, there is no requirement that the entire range covered by a claim must be operable. As long as a reasonable range that is covered by a claim is operable, the claim complies with the requierment of the law."
Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.
2164.08(b) Inoperative Subject Matter
The presence of inoperative embodiments within the scope of a claim does not necessarily render a claim nonenabled. The standard is whether a skilled person could determine which embodiments that were conceived, but not yet made, would be inoperative or operative with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art. Atlas Powder Co. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1577, 224 USPQ 409, 414 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (prophetic examples do not make the disclosure nonenabling).
請求項的範圍中包含有不可操作的實施例，不必然會使請求項為無法致能。其標準在於：該行業者是否能夠判斷，於該領域中僅僅儘平常所需之努力的情況下，哪些實施例會被認為無法操作或可操作。
「with expenditure of no more effort than is normally required in the art.」這一句還真難翻譯。不懂得改成這樣會不會比較看得懂？算不算對？「with expenditure of effort which(expenditure) is no more than normally required in the art.」
8/06/2010
8/02/2010
新型，能夠使用製造方法、功能或功能手段語言來限定嗎？
新型，能夠使用製造方法、功能或功能手段語言來限定嗎？
請參考新型形成審查第一章 4-1-11頁
新型專利之申請專利範圍應敘明物品之形狀、構造或裝置的技術特徵，惟對於只能以製造
方法之技術特徵界定物品的新型者，得以製造方法界定物品之形狀、構造或裝置。
新型專利之申請專利範圍僅於其技術特徵無法以結構方式表示，或以結構方式表示不如以
功能表示更明確時，且對應於該功能之結構或材料於新型說明已充分說明者，方可使用手
段功能用語表示。新型專利之申請專利範圍不得僅單純描述功能。
請參考新型形成審查第一章第4-1-2頁~第4-1-3頁
新型專利申請案是否屬適格之標的，其判斷原則說明如下：
(1)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以二段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項指明該特徵部分在於材料或方法，則非屬適格之標的。
(2)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以不分段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項整體在於描述非屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置的創作，則非屬適格之標的。例如該請求項整體在於描述材料或方法，係非屬適格之標的。
(3)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以不分段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項整體或部分在於描述屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置的創作，則須進一步由新型說明判斷該創作之特定技術特徵，是否明顯屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置，當該單一請求項存在一個以上屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置之特定技術特徵，即屬適格之標的。例如該請求項雖然部分特定技術特徵在於材料或方法，然尚有部分特定技術特徵屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置者，仍屬適格之標的；惟若該請求項由其新型說明之內容已可明顯得知，其整體特定技術特徵在於材料或方法，則非屬適格之標的。
請參考新型形成審查第一章 4-1-11頁
新型專利之申請專利範圍應敘明物品之形狀、構造或裝置的技術特徵，惟對於只能以製造
方法之技術特徵界定物品的新型者，得以製造方法界定物品之形狀、構造或裝置。
新型專利之申請專利範圍僅於其技術特徵無法以結構方式表示，或以結構方式表示不如以
功能表示更明確時，且對應於該功能之結構或材料於新型說明已充分說明者，方可使用手
段功能用語表示。新型專利之申請專利範圍不得僅單純描述功能。
請參考新型形成審查第一章第4-1-2頁~第4-1-3頁
新型專利申請案是否屬適格之標的，其判斷原則說明如下：
(1)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以二段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項指明該特徵部分在於材料或方法，則非屬適格之標的。
(2)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以不分段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項整體在於描述非屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置的創作，則非屬適格之標的。例如該請求項整體在於描述材料或方法，係非屬適格之標的。
(3)判斷申請專利範圍獨立項，如係以不分段式方式撰寫，其單一請求項整體或部分在於描述屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置的創作，則須進一步由新型說明判斷該創作之特定技術特徵，是否明顯屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置，當該單一請求項存在一個以上屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置之特定技術特徵，即屬適格之標的。例如該請求項雖然部分特定技術特徵在於材料或方法，然尚有部分特定技術特徵屬物品之形狀、構造或裝置者，仍屬適格之標的；惟若該請求項由其新型說明之內容已可明顯得知，其整體特定技術特徵在於材料或方法，則非屬適格之標的。
5/14/2010
“inoperative”、”enablement” 的區別
“inoperative”、”enablement”區別
要學會“用字”還真難，感覺上這幾個字的意思都很像，可是法官卻用來表達他們想要表達的不同意思。
http://www.chanesq.com/cases/cases16.html
The district court essentially concluded that the invention claimed in the patents at issue simply did not work, that is, could not clean wafers, and therefore it would require undue experimentation to carry out the invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2000). This court has recognized the relationship between the enablement requirement of § 112 and the utility requirement of § 101. See, e.g., In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[I]f the claims in an application fail to meet the utility requirement because the invention is inoperative, they also fail to meet the enablement requirement because a person skilled in the art cannot practice the invention"); EMI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, however, the district court similarly set the standard for utility too high for this invention. While the district court's major premise is correct that an inoperable invention is not enabled, the district court erred in its minor premise that the claimed invention is inoperable and lacks utility.
The inoperability standard for utility applies primarily to claims with impossible limitations. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims found inoperable because they require violating the principle of conservation of mass); Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (claims to a perpetual motion machine ruled inoperable). Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.
Even if the single Full Flow embodiment does not achieve complete cleaning, that alone would not render the invention inoperative.
再參考MPEP 2164.07 的內容
For example, if an applicant has claimed a process of treating a certain disease condition with a certain compound and provided a credible basis for asserting that the compound is useful in that regard, but to actually practice the invention as claimed a person skilled in the relevant art would have to engage in an undue amount of experimentation, the claim may be defective under 35 U.S.C. 112, but not 35 U.S.C. 101.
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/1880
這裏提到的是若有「limitation impossible to meet」是違反 § 112，而不是§ 101。
"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."
一些自己的想法。
如果是在還沒有發明“電燈”的年代。
「電燈、電發光裝置」，就是屬於「limitation impossible to meet」。但是並不屬於「a means for accomplishing an unattainable result」。
如果是在還沒有發明“電”的年代。
也許「電燈、電發光裝置」就會被認為「a means for accomplishing an unattainable result」。更嚴重一點也許發明人會被是個瘋子也說不定。
「電發光裝置」屬於功能性用語，對於這種用語的解釋很多需要考慮到現行技術的水平。
要學會“用字”還真難，感覺上這幾個字的意思都很像，可是法官卻用來表達他們想要表達的不同意思。
http://www.chanesq.com/cases/cases16.html
The district court essentially concluded that the invention claimed in the patents at issue simply did not work, that is, could not clean wafers, and therefore it would require undue experimentation to carry out the invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2000). This court has recognized the relationship between the enablement requirement of § 112 and the utility requirement of § 101. See, e.g., In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[I]f the claims in an application fail to meet the utility requirement because the invention is inoperative, they also fail to meet the enablement requirement because a person skilled in the art cannot practice the invention"); EMI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, however, the district court similarly set the standard for utility too high for this invention. While the district court's major premise is correct that an inoperable invention is not enabled, the district court erred in its minor premise that the claimed invention is inoperable and lacks utility.
The inoperability standard for utility applies primarily to claims with impossible limitations. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims found inoperable because they require violating the principle of conservation of mass); Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (claims to a perpetual motion machine ruled inoperable). Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.
Even if the single Full Flow embodiment does not achieve complete cleaning, that alone would not render the invention inoperative.
再參考MPEP 2164.07 的內容
For example, if an applicant has claimed a process of treating a certain disease condition with a certain compound and provided a credible basis for asserting that the compound is useful in that regard, but to actually practice the invention as claimed a person skilled in the relevant art would have to engage in an undue amount of experimentation, the claim may be defective under 35 U.S.C. 112, but not 35 U.S.C. 101.
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/1880
這裏提到的是若有「limitation impossible to meet」是違反 § 112，而不是§ 101。
"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."
一些自己的想法。
如果是在還沒有發明“電燈”的年代。
「電燈、電發光裝置」，就是屬於「limitation impossible to meet」。但是並不屬於「a means for accomplishing an unattainable result」。
如果是在還沒有發明“電”的年代。
也許「電燈、電發光裝置」就會被認為「a means for accomplishing an unattainable result」。更嚴重一點也許發明人會被是個瘋子也說不定。
「電發光裝置」屬於功能性用語，對於這種用語的解釋很多需要考慮到現行技術的水平。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)