但請各位讀者特別注意,於該公告中,USPTO明確告訴審查委員:「訂定於MPEP 2106(I),用來決定專利標的適格性的審查基準,並未改變。」(“[T]he basic inquiries to determine subject matter eligibility remain the same as explained in MPEP 2106(I).”)
而在Alice Corp.案所新提及的抽象概念例證,包括:(1) Fundamental economic practices,(2) Certain methods of organizing human activities,(3) An idea of itself,以及(4) Mathematical relationships/formulas,也應納入。
傾向於具備專利適格性之因素 (顯著不同)
Factors that weigh toward eligibility
(significantly different)
傾向於不具備專利適格性之因素 (並非顯著不同)
Factors that weigh against eligibility
(not significantly different)
a) Product claim recites something that initially appears to be a natural product, but after analysis is determined to be non-naturally occurring and markedly different in structure from naturally occurring products.
g) Product claim recites something that appears to be a natural product that is not markedly different in structure from naturally occurring products.
b) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception impose meaningful limits on the claim scope.
h) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception are recited at a high level of generality.
c) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception relate to the judicial exception(s) in a significant way, e.g., they are more than insignificant extra-solution activity.
i) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception must be used/taken by others to apply the judicial exception(s).
d) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception impose do more than describe the judicial exception(s) with general instructions to apply/use it.
j) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception are well-understood, purely conventional or routine.
e) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception include a particular machine or particular transformation, which implements or integrates the judicial exception(s).
k) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception are insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g., are merely appended to the judicial exception(s).
f) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception add a feature that is more than well-understood, purely conventional or routine.
l) Other elements/step in addition to judicial exception amount to nothing more than a mere field of use.
資料來源;USPTO
而若請求項寫入的是抽象概念,則應判斷有無元件或元件組合足以將該請求項提升為「遠非」(“significantly more than”)純粹的抽象概念,以轉化成可予專利的抽象概念之應用。同時,新指引也將Alice Corp.案判例所提及的幾個例示納入,如下所示,以供參考。同樣的,該等請求項必須以整體觀之,所有元件都必須獨立及綜合考慮。
表二:是否能證明具備專利適格性的技術特徵
可能足以證明其具備專利適格性的技術特徵
顯然不足以證明其具備專利適格性的技術特徵
Improvements to another technology or technical fields
Improvements to the functioning of the computer itself
Meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with an abstract idea, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer
Requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry