296期
2021 年 11 月 10 日
  北美智權官網 歷期智權報   訂閱北美智權報  
 
USPTO線上講座開課:訴願論述常見失敗原因
黃蘭閔/北美智權 智權法規研究組

USPTO 9 月底舉行了線上講座 "Evaluating Common Arguments" ,內容列舉多種訴願狀論述寫法,說明常見的訴願失敗及成功原因,對訴願人、申請人,乃至是面對IPR 攻擊的專利所有權人,可能都有參考價值。


圖片來源 : shutterstock、達志影像

USPTO 近年開辦多項線上講座,其中一個系列為PTAB Boardside Chat9 月底的講題為Evaluating Common Arguments [1],由PTAB 專利律師Andreas Baltatzis 主持,PTAB 行政專利法官(Administrative Patent Judge;APJJohn A. Jeffery 主講。內容列舉訴願人多種書狀論述寫法,說明常見的訴願失敗及成功原因,對訴願人是很好的可參考材料,而需在申請期間答辯的申請人、在IPR 等程序捍衛自家專利的專利所有權人,或許也都可以從中獲得啟發。

基本概念

主講人首先提醒,訴願人書狀可說明為何所請發明具可專利性,但務須指明審查官核駁處分的錯誤,且應牢記,Claim 裡寫的所請發明才是遊戲核心,無法把握此一核心,就可能出現類似下表所列的無效論述。

請求項

核駁

論述

說明

A structure including a plurality of metallic members which support a platform.

Anticipated by Stewart.

Stewart does not teach a structure as claimed because, as described in the Specification, the platform must be able to withstand a large load for an extended time period without failure when the structure is used in a hot, corrosive environment.

論述內容應與Claim 請求範圍對應相稱(commensurate in scope ),Claim未寫入的特徵無法用以論證所請發明具可專利性[2]

A composition prepared by a method comprising:
contacting amorphous carbon with an aqueous solution consisting essentially of ferric sulfate and an acid to form promoted amorphous carbon; and
drying the promoted amorphous carbon under drying conditions to form the composition.

The composition is disclosed by one reference.

The reference does not disclose the steps of the process of claim 15.

典型的方法界定產物請求項寫法,這種寫法的可專利性看產物,非看方法[3]

A system, comprising:
a vehicle battery;
a heater configured to regulate a temperature of the vehicle battery, the heater including a thermoelectric heater element; and
a controller configured to operate the heater.

Baker discloses a vehicle battery system, but does not disclose a heater and a controller. Hill discloses a heater and controller for a battery system. It would have been obvious to modify Baker’s system by adding a heater and controller, as disclosed by Hill, to provide battery power in cold temperatures and increase battery life.

Baker does not disclose a heater or a controller.

審查官確實陳述了前案組合理由("to provide battery power in cold temperatures and increase battery life" ),訴願人應說明核駁處分所寫結合動機、陳述方式有何問題

KSR 案教示

審查官103 核駁所用引證案,不必然需在引證案本身明文寫出結合理由,如美國最高法院KSR 案判決[4]所說,相關技術領域通常知識者的一般常識,可能就有作此結合的動機理由。有鑑於此,主講人簡報及在Q&A 環節釋疑時表示,只強調引證案未寫明結合的教示、建議、動機,不足以推翻審查官核駁判斷,建議著重於解釋引證案結合方式的不合理處、為何依審查官所說方式改良有問題。

至於所謂相關技術領域的一般常識,是否可能只是審查官個人後見之明形成的偏見?主講人分享他個人的理解:審查官需閱讀申請內容後再分析檢索相關先前技術,因此審查過程不可避免會帶有後見之明,但差別在於審查官所做可專利性判斷是否帶入不被允許的後見之明,例如,審查官雖陳述了前案結合動機,但假設他所提動機全來自被審查案的說明書,也就是把申請人自己的揭露內容當作組合藍圖,那麼,這種情況下訴願人提後見之明論述,他個人認為可能具說服力。

此次簡報多次引用KSR 案判決,畢竟KSR 案是非顯而易見性判斷標準的現行指標判例,比方分析何謂可預期的結果,按KSR 案教示,就是依先前技術元件習知功能作可預期的結合使用,進而達成可預期的結果。主講人由此推論,在化學等技術部門,若訴願人能證明其結合方式會產生非可預期的結果,在訴願中是有得分可能。

只不過,不是每個審查錯誤都會讓PTAB 作成駁回決定。譬如,審查官核駁意見正確陳述個別引證案相關內容,也正確陳述結合不同引證案所需理由,即便又另外加寫其他無關內容,甚至可能是不正確的內容,倘若PTAB 判斷這些只是無關宏旨的小瑕疵,就不會為此撤銷原核駁處分。事實上,訴願人的訴狀內容也可能有類似瑕疵,只要主要論點具說服力,PTAB 也不會揪著訴狀中的小瑕疵不放。

「類似先前技術」("Analogous prior art

根據定義,用以組合作非顯而易見性核駁的前案,需為所請發明「類似先前技術」,也就是引證案與所請發明的關係需符合以下任一要件:要件一,引證案與所請發明屬相同技術領域[5];或要件二,引證案與所請發明要解決的問題合理相關。

實務上,訴願人這類論述常見以下錯誤:

核駁

論述

答辨無效原因

Claim is anticipated by Baker.

Baker is not analogous art.

引證案是否為「類似先前技術」,與102 核駁無涉。一文獻完全揭露請求項各項特徵,即使屬於不同技術領域且無關要解決的問題,仍可用作新穎性比對材料

Claim would have been obvious in view of Baker and Hill.

Baker is not analogous art to Hill.

103 核駁所用引證案毋須互為「類似先前技術」。主講人表示,這類論述出現機率出奇地高,但引證案只要與所請發明屬相同技術領域或與其要解決的問題合理相關,即為「類似先前技術」

Claim would have been obvious in view of Baker and Hill.

Baker is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed subject matter and Hill is not reasonably pertinent to the problem the inventor faced.

論述只是結論式交待一句話,缺乏支持細節。此外,「類似先前技術」兩項要件中,引證案只要一項符合,即是所請發明的「類似先前技術」;故訴願人需額外說明Baker 與所請發明要解決的問題無關,或Hill 與所請發明非屬相同技術領域,才有得分可能

遇到非顯而易見性核駁,要就其中一件引證案發動回擊時,務必引用申請案說明書等細節,說明何以這件引證案同時欠缺「類似先前技術」兩項要件,以讓PTAB 法官了解審查官核駁處分錯在何處。

那麼,該如何說服審查官處分有誤?以下是簡報所舉可能成功的寫法範例:

可能成功寫法

說明

(1) The Specification describes the field of endeavor as adsorbents for cooling systems. In contrast, prior art describes its field of invention as relating to lubrication systems for use with internal combustion engines.

引證案與所請發明非屬相同技術領域,故未滿足「類似先前技術」要件一

(2) the Examiner fails to explain how the prior art is reasonably pertinent to solving the problem in a cooling system.

該引證案為何與所請發明要解決的問題合理相關,審查官既無解釋,自也未滿足「類似先前技術」要件二

反向教示(Teaching Away

簡報另外將「反向教示」列為單獨討論子題。依KSR 案教示,若引證案有特定習知元件組合的「反向教示」,在這種情況下發現成功的組合手段,其實有更大機會是非顯而易見。所以「反向教示」是美國最高法院認證的答辯利器,不過倘使運用不得法,還是無法發揮其作用。

實務上,這類「反向教示」論述常見以下錯誤:

核駁

論述

論述無效原因

Claim is anticipated by Baker.

Baker teaches away from the claimed subject matter.

先前技術是否有「反向教示」,與102 核駁無涉[6]

Claim would have been obvious over Baker and Hill.

Baker teaches away from the proposed combination because Baker teaches that the approach is inferior.

依既有判例,引證文獻指稱所請組合為次級(Inferior ),不能用以證明所請發明具可專利性;而引證文獻列出複數可能組合,也不代表是對所請組合的反向教示,因為這類揭露並未批評、質疑或鼓勵不加以採用[7]

那麼,什麼樣的「反向教示」論述較有成功可能?以下是簡報所舉示範例:

請求項

核駁

論述

說明

A method for recoating an optical article using vapor deposition.

Obvious over Martin which discloses removing a previously applied anti-soiling coating.

Martin teaches away because Martin discloses durability of optical coating applied by vapor deposition is poor and describes spraying, casting, rolling or immersing as suitable techniques.

Martin 指所請方法效果欠佳,已構成批評,且又揭露其他優選替代方案,是可能導致本技術領域通常知識者避免選用所請方法

「顯可嘗試」("Obvious to Try"

最後一個子題講「顯可嘗試」("Obvious to Try" )核駁,依KSR 案教示,「顯可嘗試」核駁需符合兩項要件:要件一,已存在需解決一問題的設計需求或市場壓力;及要件二,已存在有限數量已知而可預期的解決方案,相關技術通常知識者有充分理由嘗試驗證其技術領域已知選項。

面對審查官「顯可嘗試」核駁,簡報僅舉出一例,且是訴願人成功取分的寫法:

請求項

核駁

論述

說明

A heat exchanger . . . including flow channels having a flow pattern with a pattern of waves of a first wavelength in a first direction and waves of a second wavelength in a second direction.

[T]here were two possibilities regarding the waves: (1) the first and second wavelength were the same, or (2) the first and second wavelengths were different. In light of this, [it is] determined it would have been obvious to try different first and second wavelengths.

[I]t has not chosen to use two different wavelengths as a simple selection from a finite universe of possibilities because the universe of possibilities before the present invention was to use the same wavelength in both directions, as is evidenced by the applied prior art.

未滿足「顯可嘗試」核駁要件二。審查官稱通常知識者只有同波長及不同波長兩種選擇,但在所請發明產生時,該領域通常知識者實際只知需使用同波長

主講人並補充,前述示範例只談要件二,但「顯可嘗試」核駁需同時符合要件一及要件二。比方審查官就一音響的無線裝置發明作「顯可嘗試」核駁,除需解釋為何滿足要件二,也必須解釋要件一為何成立;實際上無線傳輸有其方便性,各大廠商競相推出無線產品,可以說市場上本來就有這樣的設計需求或市場壓力,但若核駁處分未加以說明、未滿足要件一,即為訴願人可藉以得分的審查官的疏失。

 

備註:

 

Facebook 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們       

 





感謝您閱讀「北美智權報」,歡迎分享智權報連結。如果您對北美智權電子報內容有任何建議或欲獲得授權,請洽:Editorial@naipo.com
本電子報所登載之文章皆受著作權保護,未經本公司授權, 請勿轉載!
© 北美智權股份有限公司 & 北美聯合專利商標事務所 版權所有     234新北市永和區福和路389號五樓 TEL:+886-2-8923-7350