對美國專利商標(biāo)局主張可預(yù)見和采用「最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)」之界限的要求

#文章僅代表作者觀點，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場#

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Bashir Ali律師 及 William Dockrey律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

原標(biāo)題：對美國專利商標(biāo)局主張可預(yù)見和采用最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)之界限的要求

本文案件中，法官認為如果專利審查員和委員會因權(quán)利要求與現(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻“類似”而主張可預(yù)見（anticipated），但未提供進一步解釋或事實證據(jù)，則不足以支持該結(jié)論。對權(quán)利要求采用最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時應(yīng)保持與說明書范圍的一致。

本月聯(lián)邦巡回法院對專利審判和上訴委員會（Patent Trial and Appeal Board，“委員會” ）的上訴案件進行了裁決，In re Hodges, Appeal No. 2017-1434 (Fed. Cir. 2018).案件中“委員會”維持了專利審查員的認定：因現(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻中的元素與權(quán)利要求限制“類似（similar）”，所以全部權(quán)利要求被現(xiàn)有技術(shù)所預(yù)見（anticipated）和/或顯而易見（obvious）；聯(lián)邦巡回法院認為“委員會”對權(quán)利要求可被預(yù)見沒有提供進一步解釋，因此不足以支持認定并撤銷了“委員會”的判決。

本上訴案涉及兩項重要的專利審查法律原則問題：1）為證明權(quán)利要求被現(xiàn)有技術(shù)所預(yù)見，美國專利商標(biāo)局（USPTO）必須如何展示以證明權(quán)利要求的主題本質(zhì)上被參考文獻所披露（inherently disclosed）？與2）USPTO對權(quán)利要求采用“最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)（Broadest Reasonable Claim Interpretation Standard)”的界限在哪？

根據(jù)聯(lián)邦巡回法院, USPTO必須提供事實證據(jù)支持“預(yù)見”裁決。任何對權(quán)利要求的要素與被引用參考文獻揭露之信息具有相似性的主張，必須通過展示引用參考文獻如何本質(zhì)上披露權(quán)利要求主題來支持該主張。關(guān)于對權(quán)利要求的解釋，法院認為盡管USPTO對權(quán)利要求可以采用“最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)”，但解釋必須與說明書（specification）相一致。

權(quán)利要求主題本質(zhì)上被參考文獻披露

Kenneth Hodges的專利申請覆蓋改良的排水閥（drain valve）。222號申請權(quán)利要求1：定義進口閥座的一個閥體（a valve body that defines an inlet seat）。

在駁回申請人的權(quán)利要求時，專利審查員與委員會依據(jù)兩份現(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻（Rasmussen 和 Frantz），認為權(quán)利要求被預(yù)見或?qū)煞莠F(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻結(jié)合導(dǎo)致權(quán)利要求顯而易見。對于Rasmussen參考文獻，審查員認為圖7（FIG 7 請參照附件原文）中的無標(biāo)記閥門（FIG 7 紅色）與本申請中權(quán)利要求的配置類似（similar to the positioning），因此參考文獻本質(zhì)揭露了Hodges所主張的閥體。

聯(lián)邦巡回法院推翻（reversed）委員會關(guān)于權(quán)利要求被預(yù)見的裁決，同時撤銷（vacated）委員會顯而易見的裁決。法院認為委員會既沒有使用事實證據(jù)支持相似性的主張；也沒有進一步解釋如何使本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員“在沒有過度實驗的情況下”，根據(jù)Rasumssen參考文獻圖7中的無標(biāo)記閥門的配置實施本發(fā)明。法院認為對Rasumssen參考文獻唯一正確的解釋為：無標(biāo)記閥門內(nèi)的進口閥座是外部排水閥的外殼。因此，進口閥座不能由閥體來定義，如權(quán)利要求1中所要求的。

這部分判決的判決可作為一項提醒：即使現(xiàn)有技術(shù)資料可能內(nèi)在地揭露了權(quán)利要求主題的限制，現(xiàn)有技術(shù)資料只有在能夠使本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員在沒有過度實驗的情況下實施所主張的發(fā)明，才具有對權(quán)利要求的“預(yù)見”。

最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

222號申請權(quán)利要求1：一個生成信號的傳感器（a sensor that generates a signal）。委員會采納了專利審查員對“信號（signal）”的解釋：一種行為、事件、或引起/刺激某些行為的原因。委員會同時支持審查員認為的權(quán)利要求被Frantz參考文獻所預(yù)見。

 在駁回委員會對“信號” 一詞的解釋時，聯(lián)邦巡回法院指出委員會的解釋與說明書不相符。委員會對“信號”的解釋不合理，因為說明書并沒有提出信號本身可以構(gòu)成壓力表指針的移動，以回應(yīng)傳感壓力。因此，委員會對“信號”牽強的解釋與申請不符合，從而不符合最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。

 這份判決可作為一項對權(quán)利要求采用最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)受說明書限制的例案。

附：英文全文

Requirements to establish anticipation and boundaries of the broadest reasonable interpretation as applied by the USPTO

On Monday February 12, 2018, the Federal Circuit vacated the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) decision that affirmed the examiner’s rejection of all claims as being anticipated and/or obvious. Two important legal principles of patent examination are at issue in this case: 1) for purposes of anticipation, what must the PTO show to establish when claimed subject matter is inherently disclosed by a reference? And, 2) what are the boundaries of the broadest reasonable claim interpretation (BRI) standard applied by the USPTO. According to the Federal Circuit, the USPTO must show facts to support a decision of anticipation. Any assertion of similarity between claimed elements and those disclosed in a cited reference must be supported by showing how a cited reference inherently discloses claimed subject matter. With respect to claim interpretation, although the USPTO can give claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation, that interpretation must be consistent with the specification.

Inherency

The patent application at issue included claims drawn to a drain valve comprising: a valve body, wherein said valve body defines an inlet seat and a first outlet seat downstream of said inlet seat. Accordingly, the claims require that the valve body define the inlet seat.

In rejecting the applicant’s claims, the examiner and the Boarrd relied on two prior art references (Rasmussen and Frantz). The examiner found that Rasmussen inherently disclosed an inlet seat within an unlabeled valve depicted in Rasmussen’s FIG. 7 above inlet port (17A). As shown in the annotated version of Rasmussen’s FIG. 7 below, the unlabeled valve (shown in red above inlet port 17A) resides above the housing 11 that contains the other valve components (shown in yellow):

In affirming the anticipation rejection, the Board found that Rasmussen’s unlabeled valve is connected to, and therefore allows or prevents flow into, inlet port 17A, and that the seat of the unlabeled valve would therefore be an internal part of and contained within the outer casing of drain valve 10. As sole support for its findings, the Board asserted that “the positioning of Rasmussen’s unlabeled valve is similar to the positioning of [the subject application’s] second member 16, which extends away from valve body 12, ostensibly to allow second member 16 to be controlled.

The Federal Circuit noted that the Board neither supported its assertion of similarity by showing facts, nor explained how the positioning of the unlabeled valve in Rasmussen’s FIG. 7 would enable a skilled artisan to “practice the invention without undue experimentation.” Even if Rasmussen’s unlabeled valve is ostensibly similar to the ’222 application’s second member 16 in some respects, it is different in the only respect that is relevant to the claims at issue—i.e., it is not an internal part of or contained within the valve body. The court found that FIG. 7 clearly shows that the valve is external to and outside Rasmussen’s casing.

Accordingly, the only permissible factual finding that could be drawn from Rasmussen is that the inlet seat within the unlabeled valve is not “defined” by the “valve body,” as required by the claims. This part of the decision serves as a reminder that although a prior art document may disclose inherently a limitation of a claimed subject matter, the prior art document is anticipatory only if it enables a skilled artisan to “practice the invention without undue experimentation.”

Broadest Reasonable Interpretation

Claim 1 of the ’222 application is also drawn to a drain valve comprising: a sensor downstream of said inlet seat, wherein said sensor generates a signal reflective of a pressure downstream of said inlet seat. The Board adopted the examiner’s construction of “signal” as an act, event, or the like that causes or incites some action and affirmed the examiner’s determination that Frantz anticipates the claims.

In rejecting the Board’s claim interpretation of “signal,” the Federal Circuit noted that the Board’s construction is inconsistent with the specification. The Board’s interpretation of “signal” was unreasonable because the specification does not suggest that the signal itself can constitute movement of the pressure gauge’s needle in response to the sensed pressure. Therefore, the Board’s strained interpretation of “signal” is inconsistent with the application, and, as such, does not meet the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. This decision is an example of a case where the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim term is limited by the specification.

發(fā)布：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）

作者：Bashir Ali律師 及 William Dockrey律師

供稿：Brinks Gilson & Lione律師事務(wù)所

編輯：IPRdaily趙珍          校對：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀

2017全球區(qū)塊鏈企業(yè)專利排行榜（前100名）

2017年企業(yè)發(fā)明授權(quán)專利排行榜（前100名）

2017全國申請人確權(quán)商標(biāo)持有量排名（前100名）

“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”

「關(guān)于IPRdaily」

IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺，致力于連接全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶匯聚了中國、美國、德國、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國等15個國家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務(wù)、政府機構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶（國內(nèi)25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專利資源，通過媒體構(gòu)建全球知識產(chǎn)權(quán)資產(chǎn)信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領(lǐng)投和天使匯跟投的Pre-A輪融資。

（英文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.com  中文官網(wǎng)：iprdaily.cn） 

本文來自IPRdaily.cn 中文網(wǎng)并經(jīng)IPRdaily.cn中文網(wǎng)編輯。轉(zhuǎn)載此文章須經(jīng)權(quán)利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請注明出處：“http://globalwellnesspartner.com/”