在PEG Oct update組織人類行為的特定方法被細分為:(1) 基礎經濟理論或實踐 (fundamental economic principles or practices)、(2) 商業或法律互動 (commercial or legal interactions)、(3) 管理個人行為或關係或人與人之間的互動 (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people),三種子類型。
PEG Oct update中強調,所謂「特定」方法,意指並非所有組織人類行為的方法均屬於抽象概念,例如組合特定成分以創建藥物製劑的一連串步驟就不會落入「組織人類行為的特定方法」。其次,組織人類行為的特定方法此一抽象概念的類型僅限於落入前述三種子類型的方法,易言之,除非在2019 PEG第3節第C目所解釋的罕見狀況下,不會出現一種不屬於前述三種子類型的組織人類行為的特定方法。再者,前述三種子類型包含了一個人或數個人從事之行為 (例如個人於線上簽署契約,或是商業行為),一行為涉及的人數多寡並不影響落入前述三種子類型的判斷,也因此某些「人與電腦互動的行為」將會落入組織人類行為的特定方法之範疇。
● 基礎經濟理論或實踐
此為組織人類行為特定方法的第一種子類型,根據2019 PEG,該子類型包含了對沖、保險、降低風險等經濟或商業行為。惟須注意者,「基礎」一詞並不使得該子類型被限縮於習知或歷史悠久的經濟或商業行為。PEG Oct update提供了數個MPEP所沒有討論的例子,本文挑選其中較具代表性的一例進行深入討論。
案例:Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.
Inventor Holdings, LLC (以下稱IH) 對Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc. (以下稱BBB) 提出侵害其專利 (Patent No. 6,381,582,以下稱’582專利),該專利所主張的發明是「一種在遠端賣家之本地銷售系統訂購商品的方法」,以下節錄其代表性請求項:
8. A method of processing a payment for a purchase of goods, comprising the steps of:
receiving at a point-of-sale system a code relating to a purchase of goods;
determining if said code relates to a local order or to a remote order from a remote seller;
if said code relates to a remote order, then
determining a price for said remote order,
receiving a payment for said remote order,
and
transmitting to said remote seller data indicating that said payment has been received for said remote order.
案例:Fort Properties, Inc. v. American Master Lease LLC
American Master Lease LLC (以下稱AML) 為Patent No. 6,292,788 (以下稱’788專利) 之專利權人,其與Fort Properties, Inc. (以下稱Fort) 的專利爭訟在地院階段被認為全部請求項因不適格而無效,AML上訴至CAFC。
1. A method of creating a real estate investment instrument adapted for performing tax-deferred exchanges comprising:
aggregating real property to form a real estate portfolio;
encumbering the property in the real estate port-folio with a master agreement; and
creating a plurality of deedshares by dividing title in the real estate portfolio into a plurality of tenant-in-common deeds of at least one predetermined denomination, each of the plurality of deedshares subject to a provision in the master agreement for reaggregating the plurality of ten-ant-in-common deeds after a specified interval.
這個子類型包含了社交活動、教學活動以及遵守規則或指示,PEG Oct update還提供了幾個更具體的案例,例如玩骰子遊戲的規則[3]、平衡頭部形狀的髮型設計方法[4]、如何對沖風險的一系列指示[5]、以及投票、核查投票並製表的方式[6]。其中,平衡頭部形狀的髮型設計方法較為特殊,故本文挑選之進行深入討論。
案例:In re Brown
本案申請人為Holly Brown、Ken Novak及Kim Goellner (以下統稱Brown),該申請案說明書指出發明目的是產生一致且可再現的頭髮造型設計,同時平衡頭部的整體外觀。本案於2012由PTAB肯認USPTO之判斷,其標的不適格,其後Brown修正請求項之步驟 (e),形成代表性請求項1如下:
1. A method of cutting hair comprising;
a) defining a head shape as one of balanced, horizontal oblong or vertical oblong by determining the greater distance between a first distance between a fringe point and a low point of the head and a second distance between the low point of the head and the occipital bone;
b) designating the head into at least three partial zones;
c) identifying at least three hair patterns;
d) assigning at least one of said at least three hair patterns to each of the said partial zones to either build weight or remove weight in at least two of said partial zones; and
e) using scissors to cut hair according to said assigned hair pattern in each of the said partial zones.
這三個判決中的請求項有一個相當有趣的共通點,它們都提出了一個不同於以往的抽象概念,然後以習知的物件做為載體,例如一般的電腦、法律文件或是一把剪刀,試圖去執行該抽象概念。換句話說,在請求項中該抽象概念變成了最主要的核心,這三個案件與「美國專利適格性實務最新發展:抽象概念之分類-I」中的Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am案給筆者的感受非常相似,僅只是將抽象概念具體化罷了,這樣直觀的具體化並不能使請求項通過machine-or-transformation test[7]。