智權報總覽 > 侵權訴訟探討           
 
專利說明書也有「禁語」 - 這是真的嗎?
郭史蒂夫/北美智權 教育訓練處 歐洲專利律師
黃少瑜 中文翻譯/北美智權 教育訓練處 設計專利工程師暨研究員
張宇凱 審稿/北美智權 教育訓練處 專利工程研究員
2014.12.17

曾經有傳言說,在專利說明書裡面絕對不要使用某些詞彙,這些被當成「不能說」的字眼,應該被放到一個黑名單裡,並且在提交說明書前進行檢查。有些公司,甚至是美國的公司都曾表明,要徹底了解專利業務,就要採取嚴格的作法來避免這些字眼。但是我個人認為,這並不是必要的,或者並不是需要全然避免的。

就由大家所熟知的Phillips v. AWH Corp一案來看,美國法院指出,專利權的適當範圍應該基於整個說明書的解釋來確認。這與USPTO的最大合理解釋範圍(最廣義合理解釋-請見前期的文章)是有所不同的,不過這與歐洲大多數國家對專利權範圍的解釋非常類似,因此,任何錯誤或誤譯的英文專利說明書也都會直接影響了美國和歐洲的專利權範圍和界限。

有些專利從業人員會避免在專利說明書中的任何地方,使用某些可能會限縮專利權範圍的字眼。一般來說,在撰寫時會盡量避免用一些很絕對的字眼,例如「必須(necessary)」、「必要(essential)」、「關鍵(key)」、「所有(every)」、「一定(must)」、「絕不(never)」、「只有(only)」、「絕對地(absolutely)」。這是有道理的,如果有人只是希望表示「使用X元件」係為本技術領域中的人員已知的可能替代方案,但是如果在說明書裡寫了「絕不能使用X元件」的話,就無法主張這也是可行的替代方案之一了。這也就是為什麼專利從業人員會選擇使用「也許(may)」、「可能(can)」、「較佳地(preferred)」,因為這些詞彙是保有選擇性而不是絕對的。

我個人認為,上述認定方式太過簡單且沒有太多助益,在說明書裡每個字詞都應該基於上下文的文字脈絡來解釋,因此即使是很絕對的字眼在說明書裡也會有其作用。就以上述之極端詞彙來說,如果在說明書裡面出現「在本發明之較佳實施例中,所有不同的部分都包含X元件」,也許「所有(every)」這個詞彙就可能會被檢查出來並要求避免或刪除,只因為在該實施例的描述內容中有「所有(every)」這個絕對的字眼。但是請注意,這個字句仍然是一個較佳實施例,因為其已先聲明「在一較佳實施例中」,所以其依然只會是一種限縮態樣,而不會侷限權利範圍。因此,在本發明之包含有X元件的每一種情況中,都可以具有某種未知的優點,同時專利權人希望將其作為相較於先前技術之限縮修改基礎時,若是沒有在說明書中採用這樣的用語,可能就會無法主張此種限縮方式。因此,仍然要注意的是,完全不使用「所有(every)」這樣的專利禁語,不但可能無法達到任何正面的效果,反而還侷限了修改權利範圍的可能性。

當然,我們也無法主張與說明書內容完全相悖的東西。舉例來說,如果說明書裡面清楚陳述該發明需要X元件,專利權人就不能解讀為該發明不需要X元件。只是避免使用絕對性的詞彙並不能避免這種問題的發生,而是要在撰寫時要保持內容的一致性。因此,在整份申請書中(包括說明書與申請專利範圍) 使用相同的用語並維持一致的架構,將會是比較好的作法。

有時候專利從業人員會基於法院的判決而提出專利禁語的概念,例如有些人會主張不應該使用「或者(or)」,而應該要使用「及/或(and/or)」,因為在Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc.ㄧ案中指出,「或者(or)」並不等於「及/或(and/or)」,請求項只有能涵蓋這兩種態樣中之一者,而不是同時包括兩者。然而僅僅依據這個判例,就把「或者(or)」以及「及/或(and/or)」視為專利禁語,似乎是過於草率。舉例來說,在技術性/物理性/自然性/暫時性的選擇限制條件係為必要的情況下,採用「及/或(and/or)」來描述替代性選擇方案可能反而會幫倒忙,這可能會導致該發明並未被正確地揭露而因此為不明確或是無法據以實現之核駁基礎的問題。我個人一貫的主張,用字要精準才能避免產生非必要之撰寫規則。所以在上述的情況下,撰寫人在撰寫專利時就應該要仔細思考為什麼使用「或者(or)」而不是「及/或(and/or)」,因為對任何人來說,即使是在提出申請當時,「或者(or)」是顯然無法以「及/或(and/or)」來取代的,反之亦然。該判例之所以在使用「或者(or)」的字義時,衍生針對於「及/或(and/or)」的涵義之爭論,是源自於用字缺乏精確性,而不在於「或者(or)」這個字本身的涵意。

就如同上述的討論內容,我個人認為列出屬於專利禁語的詞彙這件事本身並不是壞事,只是其需要被更謹慎地使用。在我來看,檢查專利文字是否首尾連貫與精確,會是一個比較理想的作法。因此,每當出現絕對性字眼(也就是被視為專利禁語的字眼)時,較佳的作法應該是要思考為何要使用這個字詞,以及這個字詞是否為必要的(且因此該限制條件是否為必要的),而不僅只是下意識的避免使用這些字眼而已。

 

 
作者: 郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師
現任: 北美智權教育訓練處 /歐洲專利律師
經歷: Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師
Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生
英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系,生化碩士
英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院,智財管理碩士

 


Patent Profanity – an absolute truth?
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney

It has been said that there are certain words that should never appear in a patent specification. These words should be considered “profane” and placed in a “blacklist” so that their presence can be checked in applications that are about to be filed. Some companies, even US companies which have demonstrated to know the patent business inside out, adopt strict practices to avoid such words.

I would argue that this is not necessary, or at least such a practice should not to be enforced all the time.

In light of a well-known case, Phillips v. AWH Corp., US courts have stated that the proper scope of patent claims should be interpreted in light of the entire patent specification. This is at odds with the even larger interpretation on claim scope given by the USPTO (broadest reasonable interpretation – see previous article), but is very similar to what most European countries practice in claim scope interpretation.  Thus, any mistake/mistranslation in the English patent specification can directly affect the scope and boundaries of the patent rights in the US and Europe.

Some patent practitioners avoid using certain words in any part of the patent specification so as to not restrict the claim scope. Generally, the words to be not used are absolutes, such as "necessary," "essential," "key," "every," "must," "never," "only," "absolutely”. It makes sense, because if one then wished to argue that the claim should be interpreted to include “the use of X” as one of many known possible alternatives known to a person skilled in the art, then one cannot if the  patent specification contains the phrase “never use X”. That is why many patent practitioners use words such as “may”, “can” and “preferred” instead - because the words are not absolute, but only optional.

I would argue that this approach is simplistic and not helpful. I would argue that every word has to be interpreted in context, and therefore even absolute words may have their value in context. For example, in the above list of exemplary absolute terms, one can find “every”. If the patent specification contained the following statement “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, every different section of the invention comprises X”, one would be motivated to say that the phrase should be avoided or removed because the embodiment it comprises is limited by the absolute “every”. Please note however that it remains a preferred embodiment only because it is clearly curtailed by the section “in a preferred embodiment”. It thus becomes a fall-back position without restricting the scope of the claim. Thus, if there was some unknown advantage in every section of invention comprising X, and one wanted basis for amending to this as a fall-back position in front of prior art, then the lack of such a phrase in the specification would not allow you to claim it. Hence, being careful about not using a patent profane word “every” has limited the possibilities to amend the claims without achieving anything positive.

Obviously one cannot argue the complete opposite of something that is plainly stated as such in the specification. For example, one cannot argue that one should interpret that the invention does not require X when it is stated that the invention requires X. But this problem does not arise from avoiding absolutes, but from not being consistent. It is thus important to be consistent in patent drafting. It is thus good practice to use the same words and maintain a consistent structure to the entire application (specification and claims).

Sometimes patent practitioners introduce the concept of patent profanities in light of decisions made – for example some claim that one should never use “or” and always use “and/or” because in Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., it was decided that "or" is not "and/or" and the claim only covered a choice between either one of two alternatives, not both. Attributing the use of “or” and “and/or” as profane in patent specification in light of this decision seems also reductive. For example, in cases where the alternatives are necessary by technological/physical/natural/temporal limitations, the use of “and/or” to describe the alternatives may be problematic instead of helpful – it could create a basis for arguing that the invention has not been disclosed correctly and thus is not clear or not enabled. I would argue that, together with being consistent, the way to avoid creating unnecessary rules in drafting is to use words precisely. Thus in the above circumstance, the drafter of the patent should have considered at the time of drafting why use “or” instead of “and/or” because it is clear to anybody, even at the time of filing, that “or” can never replace “and/or” and vice versa. Arguing after that “and/or” was meant when “or” was used is due to the lack of precision in choosing ones words and not in the meaning of “or”.

To follow on from the above, I would argue that the list of patent profane terms is not a negative concept in itself. It should just be used with caution. I would argue it is a much better tool to be used to check that one has drafted the specification in a coherent and precise manner. Hence, every time an absolute term, which some would consider “patent profane”,  appears in a newly drafted specification, I would argue that it might be better practice to consider why it has been used and if it needs to be there (and thus if the limitation is necessary) - not just to avoid using the term automatically.

 

 
Author: Stefano John, European Patent Attorney
Experiences: European Patent Attorney, Bryers
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi
Internship, EPO

 


Facebook 在北美智權報粉絲團上追踪我們