098期
2021 年 11 月 10 日
  北美智权官网 历期智权报   订阅北美智权报  
 
USPTO在线讲座开课:诉愿论述常见失败原因
黄兰闵/北美智权 智权法规研究组

USPTO 9月底举行了在线讲座 “Evaluating Common Arguments”,内容列举多种诉愿状论述写法,说明常见的诉愿失败及成功原因,对诉愿人、申请人,乃至是面对IPR攻击的专利所有权人,可能都有参考价值。

USPTO近年开办多项在线讲座,其中一个系列为PTAB Boardside Chat,9月底的讲题为Evaluating Common Arguments[1],由PTAB专利律师Andreas Baltatzis主持,PTAB行政专利法官(Administrative Patent Judge;APJ)John A. Jeffery主讲。内容列举诉愿人多种书状论述写法,说明常见的诉愿失败及成功原因,对诉愿人是很好的可参考材料,而需在申请期间答辩的申请人、在IPR等程序捍卫自家专利的专利所有权人,或许也都可以从中获得启发。

基本概念

主讲人首先提醒,诉愿人书状可说明为何所请发明具可专利性,但务须指明审查官核驳处分的错误,且应牢记,Claim里写的所请发明才是游戏核心,无法把握此一核心,就可能出现类似下表所列的无效论述。

请求项

核驳

论述

说明

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.

论述内容应与Claim请求范围对应相称(commensurate in scope),Claim未写入的特征无法用以论证所请发明具可专利性[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.

典型的方法界定产物请求项写法,这种写法的可专利性看产物,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.

审查官确实陈述了前案组合理由(“to provide battery power in cold temperatures and increase battery life”),诉愿人应说明核驳处分所写结合动机、陈述方式有何问题

KSR 案教示

审查官103核驳所用引证案,不必然需在引证案本身明文写出结合理由,如美国最高法院KSR 案判决[4]所说,相关技术领域通常知识者的一般常识,可能就有作此结合的动机理由。有鉴于此,主讲人简报及在Q&A环节释疑时表示,只强调引证案未写明结合的教示、建议、动机,不足以推翻审查官核驳判断,建议着重于解释引证案结合方式的不合理处、为何依审查官所说方式改良有问题。

至于所谓相关技术领域的一般常识,是否可能只是审查官个人后见之明形成的偏见?主讲人分享他个人的理解:审查官需阅读申请内容后再分析检索相关先前技术,因此审查过程不可避免会带有后见之明,但差别在于审查官所做可专利性判断是否带入不被允许的后见之明,例如,审查官虽陈述了前案结合动机,但假设他所提动机全来自被审查案的说明书,也就是把申请人自己的揭露内容当作组合蓝图,那么,这种情况下诉愿人提后见之明论述,他个人认为可能具说服力。

此次简报多次引用KSR 案判决,毕竟KSR 案是非显而易见性判断标准的现行指标判例,比方分析何谓可预期的结果,按KSR 案教示,就是依先前技术组件习知功能作可预期的结合使用,进而达成可预期的结果。主讲人由此推论,在化学等技术部门,若诉愿人能证明其结合方式会产生非可预期的结果,在诉愿中是有得分可能。

只不过,不是每个审查错误都会让PTAB作成驳回决定。譬如,审查官核驳意见正确陈述个别引证案相关内容,也正确陈述结合不同引证案所需理由,即便又另外加写其他无关内容,甚至可能是不正确的内容,倘若PTAB判断这些只是无关宏旨的小瑕疵,就不会为此撤销原核驳处分。事实上,诉愿人的诉状内容也可能有类似瑕疵,只要主要论点具说服力,PTAB也不会揪着诉状中的小瑕疵不放。

「类似先前技术」(”Analogous prior art)

根据定义,用以组合作非显而易见性核驳的前案,需为所请发明「类似先前技术」,也就是引证案与所请发明的关系需符合以下任一要件:要件一,引证案与所请发明属相同技术领域[5];或要件二,引证案与所请发明要解决的问题合理相关。

实务上,诉愿人这类论述常见以下错误:

核驳

论述

答辨无效原因

Claim is anticipated by Baker.

Baker is not analogous art.

引证案是否为「类似先前技术」,与102核驳无涉。一文献完全揭露请求项各项特征,即使属于不同技术领域且无关要解决的问题,仍可用作新颖性比对材料

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

Baker is not analogous art to Hill.

103核驳所用引证案毋须互为「类似先前技术」。主讲人表示,这类论述出现机率出奇地高,但引证案只要与所请发明属相同技术领域或与其要解决的问题合理相关,即为「类似先前技术」

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.

论述只是结论式交待一句话,缺乏支持细节。此外,「类似先前技术」两项要件中,引证案只要一项符合,即是所请发明的「类似先前技术」;故诉愿人需额外说明Baker与所请发明要解决的问题无关,或Hill与所请发明非属相同技术领域,才有得分可能

遇到非显而易见性核驳,要就其中一件引证案发动回击时,务必引用申请案说明书等细节,说明何以这件引证案同时欠缺「类似先前技术」两项要件,以让PTAB法官了解审查官核驳处分错在何处。 那么,该如何说服审查官处分有误?以下是简报所举可能成功的写法范例:

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:

可能成功写法

说明

(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.

引证案与所请发明非属相同技术领域,故未满足「类似先前技术」要件一

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

该引证案为何与所请发明要解决的问题合理相关,审查官既无解释,自也未满足「类似先前技术」要件二

反向教示(Teaching Away

简报另外将「反向教示」列为单独讨论子题。依KSR 案教示,若引证案有特定习知组件组合的「反向教示」,在这种情况下发现成功的组合手段,其实有更大机会是非显而易见。所以「反向教示」是美国最高法院认证的答辩利器,不过倘使运用不得法,还是无法发挥其作用。

实务上,这类「反向教示」论述常见以下错误:

核驳

论述

论述无效原因

Claim is anticipated by Baker.

Baker teaches away from the claimed subject matter.

先前技术是否有「反向教示」,与102核驳无涉[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,引证文献指称所请组合为次级(Inferior),不能用以证明所请发明具可专利性;而引证文献列出复数可能组合,也不代表是对所请组合的反向教示,因为这类揭露并未批评、质疑或鼓励不加以采用[7]

那么,什么样的「反向教示」论述较有成功可能?以下是简报所举示范例:

请求项

核驳

论述

说明

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指所请方法效果欠佳,已构成批评,且又揭露其他优选替代方案,是可能导致本技术领域通常知识者避免选用所请方法

「显可尝试」(“Obvious to Try”)

最后一个子题讲「显可尝试」(“Obvious to Try”)核驳,依KSR 案教示,「显可尝试」核驳需符合两项要件:要件一,已存在需解决一问题的设计需求或市场压力;及要件二,已存在有限数量已知而可预期的解决方案,相关技术通常知识者有充分理由尝试验证其技术领域已知选项。

面对审查官「显可尝试」核驳,简报仅举出一例,且是诉愿人成功取分的写法:

请求项

核驳

论述

说明

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.

未满足「显可尝试」核驳要件二。审查官称通常知识者只有同波长及不同波长两种选择,但在所请发明产生时,该领域通常知识者实际只知需使用同波长

主讲人并补充,前述示范例只谈要件二,但「显可尝试」核驳需同时符合要件一及要件二。比方审查官就一音响的无线装置发明作「显可尝试」核驳,除需解释为何满足要件二,也必须解释要件一为何成立;实际上无线传输有其方便性,各大厂商竞相推出无线产品,可以说市场上本来就有这样的设计需求或市场压力,但若核驳处分未加以说明、未满足要件一,即为诉愿人可藉以得分的审查官的疏失。

 

备注:

 

好消息~北美智权报有微信公众号了!

《北美智权报》内容涵盖世界各国的知识产权新闻、重要的侵权诉讼案例分析、法规解析,以及产业与技术新知等等。

立即关注北美智权微信公众号→ NAIP_IPServices

~欢迎读者分享与转发~

 


 





感谢您阅读「北美智权报」,欢迎分享智权报连结。如果您对北美智权电子报内容有任何建议或欲获得授权,请洽:Editorial@naipo.com
本电子报所登载之文章皆受著作权保护,未经本公司授权, 请勿转载!
© 北美智权股份有限公司 & 北美联合专利商标事务所 版权所有 234 台湾地区新北市永和区福和路389号五楼 TEL:+886-2-8923-7350