PE 專欄
核駁答辯技巧大公開!

Daniel Gross 撰文/北美智權 資深專利工程師
李淑蓮 中文編譯/北美智權報 編輯部

2012.11.16
         

編者按:本文作者Daniel Gross為北美智權資深專利工程師,有超過10年以上的專利稿寫作及處理OA核駁答辯的經驗。本文為由Daniel親自撰寫,他毫不藏私的分享了個人OA答辯的豐富經驗,及一些小撇步。不過技巧是死的,人是活的,同一項技巧不一定適合每一個人,本文只希望能提供讀者更多面向的思考。Daniel文章的英文原文附在中文翻譯之後,供有需要的讀者參考。


當你在申請美國專利時,不管你在準備專利說明書的時候是多麼的多小心謹慎,你仍然會有很大的機會收到至少一次官方意見審查書(Office Action, OA),對你的專利請求項提出核駁意見;最後你可能會發現其實你所申請的專利已經有很多前案。事實上,如果你所申請的專利完全沒有經過任何的官方核駁意見就獲准,那你的專利請求範圍很有可能會過窄,這也間接削減了你發明的價值;在這種情況下,也唯有Reissue才可以讓你擴大原先申請的專利範圍。

所以OA有時候並不是壞事,因為它在你的專利獲准前提供你最佳的參考資料,讓你了解你所申請的專利的限制,並讓你有機會在限制內將專利請求範圍最大化。除此之外,OA的過程也可以讓你的競爭者蒙在鼓裡,摸不透你的請求項最終會如何修改;而你則可以藉此機會將請求項調整成最切合你目前的需求。

不過,如果不小心謹慎,處理核駁答辯時很容易會誤觸地雷。坊間已有不少文章就法律及技術觀點,分析在處理核駁答辯時應作及不該作的事項,我在這裡想從人性自然反應的角度,談一下幾個我們經常會犯的錯誤。

發明人在回應OA時,最常犯的一個錯誤就是自以為完全了解專利審查委員如何及為何「誤解」了自己的請求項,但很多時候我們只是因為看到他所提供的引證文獻與我們所提出的請求項不一樣就會反駁。

我們不應該把審查委員視為敵人,他們只不過是一個肩負著堅持新穎性需求重任的交涉窗口而已。通常審查委員教育程度都很高、也很聰明、而且在自己專業的領域都有很深入的研究;最重要的是,他們很懂技術。當然我也看過一些很粗劣的核駁,和一些問題重重的公告專利,但大多數的審查委員都很稱職。

當核駁意見中出現的參考資料與你的應用在目的或是結構上有差異時,這並不代表審查委員不了解你的發明。這通常是表示請求項可以用有別於你試圖表達的方式來解釋,而他們只不過是向你展示了另一種詮釋方式,與你所提出的方式是同樣有效的。

通常客戶或是事務所準備回應核駁答辯的內容都與發明本身相類似,如果需要修改請求項的話,這是很好的做法;不過,這種「類似」會讓我們傾向於將請求項作出符合我們本身對該發明的理解的解釋。這種相對的不客觀會讓我們無法看清楚請求項真正說了什麼。如同俗語所說的:「我們只看到我們想看的」。

為了克服這種「我們只看到我們想看的」的傾向,我有一些客戶或是同事都成功的製作出獨立的專利請求項表格,將引證文獻拿來跟請求項中的每一個限制條件作比對。雖然這個方法對我來說非常有用,但卻有一個缺點,因為請求項表格仍然受限於文字,而文字很多時候很容易會變成我們既有尋找目標的相同語意(結果還是只看到我們想看的)。因為請求項表格有不足的地方,所以我本身有一個沿用多年的小秘訣,用來對抗這種「只看到我們想看的」的傾向。那就是把申請案中的專利應用先拋開,拿出一枝筆和一張白紙,將請求項用簡單的方式描繪出來,一次只劃出一個限制條件,完全照請求項的說明依樣畫葫蘆。

舉個例子:假設請求項說「一個電容式觸控螢幕」……那就在紙上劃一個標示為螢幕的長方形,「與一個處理器連接」……再在紙上劃一個長方形代表處理器,然後用一條線將兩個長方形連接起來,「及連接記憶體」……然後劃一個方塊代表記憶體,再將記憶體方塊與觸控螢幕連接,這樣子你就應該有一點概念了。

在畫請求項圖示的時候,千萬不要想發明的事,這是很重要的。而且也不要想物件的位置、尺寸、忘掉學校教課書中所教你的電路原理、拋棄你過去的經驗常識。就像你向一個小朋友逐條逐條讀出專利請求項,請他一一劃下來一樣,只要把請求項中所提到的字劃出來,其他不用管。注意你的繪圖看起來不應該像發明,它應該只是反映出請求項的原貌。

當你完成繪圖之後,把核駁意見拿回來與你的圖對照,只要將圖作比對就可以啦(如圖1)。你會很驚訝的發現一張簡單的請求項圖示,就可以讓你理解審查委員在說什麼,和他們為什麼會這麼說。很多時候,你會突然間發現審查委員是對的。畢竟請求項一般來說都是很寬廣的,一定有很多先前技術,對熟悉該領域的審查委員來說,找出不同組合的引證資料來並不是難事。

1. 將你畫的圖與核駁意見中的引證文獻作比對

體認及領悟到為什麼審查委員是對的、和了解他們是如何對,也可以成為你自救的手段。現在你已經明白他們在想什麼,而簡單的繪圖也展示了你事實上想請求什麼,你現在已經站在比較有利的位置,來作出必要的辯論或是修改。一個專利只需要一項的新穎功能,如果你的繪圖中已經有這個新穎功能,就點出來給審查委員知道;如果連一項新穎功能都找不出來,那就在圖上動手腳。找方法來扭轉圖示或是在圖示上增加新的東西,賦予它新穎功能。把這些步驟都完成後才來就相對應的地方修改請求項。

照這樣做有另一個好處,就是審查委員會了解你不是只想跟他們爭辯,你除了設法搞清楚狀況外,也對他們所說的作出回應;如此一來,審查委員也會更仔細的聆聽你的陳述。這種「我在聆聽你說話,並了解你想要說什麼」的交流方式在差異中成功達成決議是很重要的。雖然面前有很多前案,但請用視覺思考,這樣可以協助你了解審查委員的觀點,也可以讓你在溝通時占上風。

 

Picture the Claim

Daniel Gross / NAIP Senior Patent Engineer

No matter how carefully you prepare your US patent application, the odds are very good that you will receive at least one Office action rejecting the claims. After all, there is a lot of prior art out there. In fact, if your patent is allowed without any Office actions, the odds are also very good that your claims were too narrow; reducing the value of your invention, and filing for reissue may be your only option to regain that lost claim scope.

So, an Office action can sometimes be a good thing, as it gives you the opportunity to maximize your claim scope given the constraints of the best references available before your patent issues. It also can keep your competitors in the dark as to what your final claims will be as you can tweak them to fit your most current needs if done properly.

But responding to an Office action can also be a minefield of problems if not handled carefully. While there is plenty of advice out there concerning the legal and technical do’s and don’ts when responding to an Office action, I want to talk about avoiding a frequent mistake more related to the human nature side of the response.

One of the most common errors I see made when responding to an Office action is failing to fully understand how and why the examiner has interpreted the claims “so badly”. Often we immediately see that the reference is different and just make that argument. But this can be a mistake.

The examiner is not our enemy, but a negotiator whose job it is to enforce the novelty requirements. The examiner is also well educated, smart, and very specialized in his/her field. Examiners know and understand the technology. Sure, I've seen some bogus rejections and there are some well publicized questionable patents that do slip through the cracks in the system, but by and large the examiners do a pretty good job.

When a reference used in a rejection has a purpose or structure different than that of your application, it doesn't mean that the examiner doesn't understand your invention. They usually do. It often just means that the claims can be interpreted differently from what you intended, and you are merely being shown a different interpretation which is just as valid as your own.

Usually a client and/or the agent preparing the response is quite familiar with the invention, which is a very good thing if amending claims, but this familiarity also tends to make us interpret claims to fit our own understanding of the invention. This relative lack of objectivity can prevent us from seeing what the claims really say. As the proverb goes, “we see what we want to see”.

To help overcome this "we see what we want to see" predisposition, some clients or colleagues quite successfully make up claim charts individually comparing each limitation of the claim with the reference. While often useful for me too, this method has a drawback in that claim charts are still limited to words, and words are still subject to the same semantic meanings we inherently seek. So one trick I've used for years to help conquer this predisposition is to put away the application, from my desk and from my mind, to get a pen and a blank sheet of paper, and to draw a crude picture of the claim, one limitation at a time, exactly the way that it is described in the claim.

For example, if the claim says "A capacitive touch screen".... draw a labeled rectangle on the page, "coupled to a processor".... draw a processor rectangle somewhere else at random on the page and a line connecting the two rectangles, “and to a memory”… draw the memory rectangle and the connection to the touch screen. You get the idea.

It is very important while drawing this claim picture to NOT think about the invention. Do not think about relative sizes or locations of elements. Forget the textbook circuits you learned at school. Forget your experiences. Draw like a child would do if you read them the claims. Only draw what the words in the claims specifically say, nothing more, and nothing less. Your drawing should not look like the invention; it should only reflect the claims.

When you are finished, take the rejection back out and compare it with your drawing (See diagram 1), and only the drawing. It can be surprising what a crude visual representation of the claims can do as far as your understanding of what the examiner is saying and why he/she is saying it. Often the result is your sudden realization that the examiner, unfortunately, is right. After all, claims tend to be fairly broad and there is a lot of prior art out there. It's not too difficult for the examiner specializing in the field to come up with combinations of references that may suggest these broad limitations.

Diagram 1: Compare the rejection with your drawing

But a realization of how and why the examiner is correct can also be your salvation. Now that you know what he/she is thinking and the crude drawing has shown you what you are really claiming, you are in a better position to make the necessary arguments or changes. A patent only requires a single novel feature. If your drawing already shows a novel feature, point it out to the examiner. If it doesn't, work only with your picture. Find a way to tweak your drawing or add something new to your drawing that gives it a novel feature. Only then amend your claim accordingly.

Doing this offers another advantage too. The examiner will know that instead of you wanting to just argue with them, you are really trying to understand and respond to what they are saying. This often leads to them listening more carefully to you. Any counselor will tell you that this kind of "I am listening to you and understand what you are saying" exchange is quite important in any successful resolution of differences. There is a lot of prior art out there, but thinking visually instead of only verbally can often help you better understand the examiner's point of view, and doing that can give you the edge in the negotiations.

 

Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團