北美智權股份有限公司

331期


2023 年 04 月 26 日

北美智權官網

歷期智權報訂閱北美智權報

也談ChatGPT：從一個專利問題的諮詢經驗講起

黃蘭閔／北美智權　智權法規研究組

ChatGPT功能強大，讓很多人真切感受到新時代的來臨。找ChatGPT朝聖過嗎？第一次拜讀ChatGPT的開釋，是驚嘆？驚喜？驚慌？驚嚇？

圖片來源 : shutterstock、達志影像

ChatGPT人氣席捲全球，許多人當它是進階版Google大神，備好問題請ChatGPT指點迷津，並在網路上公開ChatGPT各項解答。結果一如各方所說，ChatGPT撰寫回覆的速度及邏輯組織能力非常讓人驚豔，只不過，依所看到網路公開的一項測試結果（見下方框格中的英文文字），ChatGPT仍有重大缺陷：雖然法條條次引用精準，但法條內容張冠李戴，以致最終給出的回覆結論錯誤。

測試問題及答案分析

該顯示的測試問題（下稱本問題）是：美國設計專利申請案能否主張美國暫時案優先權？而ChatGPT回覆如下：

Yes, a US design application can claim the benefit of a provisional application under certain conditions.

In the United States, a provisional patent application can be filed to establish an early filing date for an invention. A provisional application can be filed for a utility patent or a design patent. If a design patent applicant has previously filed a provisional application for the same invention, the applicant may claim the benefit of the provisional application in the non-provisional design application.

To claim the benefit of a provisional application, the non-provisional design application must be filed within 12 months of the provisional application filing date. The non-provisional design application must also include a specific reference to the provisional application, such as its application number, filing date, and title. The reference must be included in an application data sheet or in the specification of the non-provisional application.

It is important to note that the non-provisional design application must claim the same invention that was disclosed in the provisional application. If the non-provisional application claims a different design, then it cannot claim the benefit of the provisional application.

這答案明顯有問題。先前網路上也曾有人分享類似狀況，問ChatGPT英國分割案必須達到各項規定要件的官方期限時，ChatGPT雖補抓到2023年新法生效訊息，但最後卻給出錯誤解答。其中一項主要原因，推測是ChatGPT的回答必然受其訓練所餵數據限制，因此若是2021年後的數據資料，ChatGPT目前的處理能力有限。[1]

事實上，為提供本問題回覆的法源依據，ChatGPT引用了正確的法條條次，即35 U.S.C. 172。只不過，拜讀它所摘錄的法條內容，令人更加困惑：

The provisions governing the benefit of a provisional application for a non-provisional design application can be found in 35 U.S. Code § 172, which states:

"(a) Benefit of Earlier Filing Date.—An application for patent for a design that is filed under this chapter by any person who has, or whose legal representatives or assigns have, previously filed an application for patent for the same design, as defined in section 171, in a foreign country which affords similar privileges in the case of applications filed in the United States or to citizens of the United States, or in the United States, may have the same effect, as to such invention, as though filed in this country on the date on which the application for patent for the same invention was first filed in such foreign country or the United States, whichever is earlier, if the application in this country is filed within six months from the earliest date on which such foreign application was filed.

(b) Provisional Application.—An application for patent for a design may be filed under section 111(b) of this title in the same manner as is provided for a utility patent application. Any such application for patent for a design filed under this section shall be designated as a provisional application for design patent application and shall be subject to the conditions and requirements of this section, except as otherwise provided.

(c) Effect of Provisional Application.—A provisional application for a design patent shall be accorded a filing date and shall be designated as such. The filing of a provisional application for a design patent shall not constitute the filing of an application for purposes of section 102 of this title. A provisional application for a design patent shall not mature into a patent unless the requirements of sections 112, 131, and 151 of this title are complied with within the time period provided in section 119(e) of this title.

(d) Benefit of Provisional Application.—The right of priority provided for in section 119 of this title shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of subsections (e) and (f) of such section."

The specific requirements for claiming the benefit of a provisional application for a non-provisional design application can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, 37 C.F.R. § 1.78.

查對35 U.S.C. 172現行條文[2]，僅有以下兩個句子。而其中第二句明文規定，美國設計案不適用35 U.S.C. 119(e)的暫時案優先權主張規範。

The right of priority provided for by subsections (a) through (d) of section 119 shall be six months in the case of designs. The right of priority provided for by section 119(e) shall not apply to designs.

美國1994年12月8日頒布聯邦公法第103-465號《烏拉圭回合協議法》（Uruguay Round Agreements Act，簡稱URAA），導入暫時案制度，當時即一併於URAA Sec. 532(c)(2)修訂35 U.S.C. 172 ，新增第二句條文，明示美國設計案不適用35 U.S.C. 119(e)的暫時案優先權主張規定。是以，美國從未賦予設計申請案申請人主張美國暫時案優先權的機會。[3]換言之，即便是2021年前既有的數據資料，ChatGPT也不一定能採輯組織出正確的回覆內容。

ChatGPT能否自主撰寫專利稿件？

除專利問題諮詢外，專利人難免關注ChatGPT能否自主撰寫專利稿件？有人曾出題實測，請ChatGPT針對訂書機、迴紋針寫申請專利範圍，依其貼出的ChatGPT所寫請求項內容，AI系統的產出發展著實教人印象深刻。不過再深入分析後發現，ChatGPT寫出的請求項範圍過於狹窄，且AI似乎無法「理解」彎折一圈的迴紋針範圍包括多繞幾圈的迴紋針，顯然，完全信任AI代寫專利稿件，現在還不是時候。[4]

雖然不能用ChatGPT自己撰寫專利稿件，那ChatGPT至少可用做協助撰稿？不，萬萬不可！ChatGPT的FAQ明白警告使用者勿在對話中分享機密資訊，因為系統和真人訓練人員有可能檢視這些對話內容，也就是說，不論這些內容是否真有ChatGPT系統人員看到，雙方既無保密協議，有可能被視作公開揭露（儘管第三方不易證明）。再進一步說，使用者輸入的機密資料，沒人知道會否被用以訓練ChatGPT，甚至有無可能之後在ChatGPT和其他使用者對話時被揭露。[5]

另一個有趣的專利面議題是：AI可否用以證明一發明顯而易見？假定AI可自行發明創造，其回覆即與顯而易見問題無關；若AI無發明創造能力，其論述就有可能反映習知資訊及其組合。有事務所做了測試並分享測試資料及結果，其結論是：受提示工程（prompt engineering）、AI幻覺（hallucination）等因素限制，ChatGPT回覆有可能是事實錯誤、內容矛盾的論述，現階段的證據價值有限。不過，Microsoft最近大手筆砸入百億美元再投資OpenAI，長此以往，幾年後或許就不難想像會有這麼一天：AI產出證據能在專利訴訟派上用場。[6]

而在那天到來之前，AI使用者仍需謹慎做好自己的功課。實際上，發現ChatGPT引用的35 U.S.C. 172條文出錯後，本問題發問人曾再追問所錄法條是否為現行條文，結果得到ChatGPT以下回覆：

The provision I cited, 35 U.S. Code § 172, is the latest version of the statute governing the benefit of earlier filing dates for design patent applications as of my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021. However, it is possible that the provision may be amended or updated in the future. It is always a good practice to check for the latest version of the statute or regulation before taking any legal action or making any important decisions.

誠哉斯言！在採取任何法律行動或做出任何重要決定之前，再查一次最新適用法規總是有益無害。

備註：

ChatGPT may be able to help with your homework, but don't expect it to do it for you，請見https://reacts.marks-clerk.com/post/102i67l/chatgpt-may-be-able-to-help-with-your-homework-but-dont-expect-it-to-do-it-for。
請見https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-9015-appx-l.html#d0e304490313。
URAA修法全文請見https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-108/pdf/STATUTE-108-Pg4809.pdf。
Can AI replace patent attorneys? 請見https://www.hgf.com/news/can-ai-replace-patent-attorneys/。
Does using ChatGPT count as a public disclosure? 請見https://reacts.marks-clerk.com/post/102i6ex/does-using-chatgpt-count-as-a-public-disclosure。
AI Can Almost Generate Evidence Of Patent Obviousness，請見https://www.wilmerhale.com/insights/publications/20230315-ai-can-almost-generate-evidence-of-patent-obviousness。

Facebook

在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們