沒收到驗證郵件？請確認郵箱是否正確或 重新發(fā)送郵件
#本文由作者授權發(fā)布，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉載，不代表IPRdaily立場#
來源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）
作者：Dr Philip Cupitt Partner 麥仕奇英國伯明翰辦公室
原標題：歐洲視角：美國專利商標局關于計算機實施的發(fā)明的指導意見
2019年1月7日，美國專利商標局（USPTO）發(fā)布了兩份針對計算機實施的發(fā)明的權利要求的主題適格性和清楚性的審查實踐的指導意見。在本文中，筆者對USPTO的新指導意見與歐洲專利局（EPO）已確立的做法進行比較，并且提供撰寫滿足這兩個專利局要求的專利申請的實用建議。
主題適格性
關于審查計算機實施的發(fā)明的可專利性，EPO擁有長期建立并且一致的做法，其基于多年來逐漸演進的判例法。相反，USPTO在美國法典第35號標題第101條（35 U.S.C. § 101）下審查主題適格性的做法一直不太一致，并且在2014年美國最高法院對于愛絲公司訴CLS銀行國際公司（Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International）的判決后，更為動蕩。
為了提高USPTO應用§101進行專利申請審查的一致性和可預測性，針對主題適格性的新指導意見確立了以下三“組”專利不適格的“抽象概念”：
a) 數(shù)學概念 – 數(shù)學關系、數(shù)學公式或方程、數(shù)學計算；
b) 組織人類活動的某些方法 - 基本的經(jīng)濟原理或實踐 （包括對沖、保險、降低風險）；商業(yè)或法律活動 （包括合約形式的協(xié)議；法律義務；廣告、市場或銷售活動或行為；商業(yè)關系）；管理人員之間的個人行為或關系或交互（包括社會活動、教學、以及遵守規(guī)則或指導）以及
c) 思想過程 - 人腦中進行的觀念（包括觀察、評估、判斷、觀點）。
USPTO的新“分組”與歐洲已有四十多年的排除在可專利性之外的主題密切對應。例如，USPTO確立的“數(shù)學概念”和“思想過程”分組與歐洲專利公約第52條第2款a和c項（Article 52(2)(a) and (c) EPC）中敘述的排除在可專利性之外的“數(shù)學方法”和“用于進行思想行為的方法”相類似。盡管“組織人類活動的某些方法”分組乍一看并不符合歐洲排除在可專利性之外的主題，但USPTO關于此類方法的示例全都涉及EPC第52條第2款c項下作為“商業(yè)方法”而被排除在可專利性之外的主題。
我們預期，USPTO關于主題適格性的指導意見將導致USPTO與EPO實踐之間更大的分歧。鑒于之前提到的USPTO新“分組”與歐洲現(xiàn)存的排除在可專利性之外的主題之間的相似性，USPTO認為不可專利的大多數(shù)發(fā)明在歐洲將依舊不可專利。然而，也可能存在某些技術領域根據(jù)EPO已建立的做法是不可專利的，卻落在USPTO的分組之外。例如，圖形用戶界面（GUI）在EPO難以獲得專利授權，但似乎并未落入USPTO的分組之內。對于此類技術領域，我們預期USPTO會采取比EPO更寬松的做法，由此會進一步增加這兩個專利局之間的分歧。
關于“司法例外的實際應用”的權利要求
一個有趣的方面是,主題適格性指導意見針對“司法例外的實際應用”的權利要求，創(chuàng)立了新的安全港。
在USPTO評估主題適格性的測試的第2A步，需要詢問一個權利要求是否“針對司法例外”，諸如自然法則、自然現(xiàn)象或抽象概念。如果發(fā)現(xiàn)權利要求不是針對司法例外，那么該權利要求就是專利適格的。相反，如果發(fā)現(xiàn)權利要求針對司法例外，那么該權利要求有可能被認為是專利不適格的，因此需要進一步對其分析。
根據(jù)主題適格性的指導意見，如果一個權利要求記載了該司法例外的實際應用（參見以下圖1），那么該權利要求不能被判定為針對司法例外。也就是說，該權利要求將被認為是專利適格的。
USPTO的指導意見反映了EPO最近關于數(shù)學方法的審查實踐的變化 ，如EPO在2018年11月版的《審查指南》中所述的那樣（參見第G章第II部分第3.3節(jié)，（ Chapter G-II, 3.3））。在EPO的新實踐框架下，如果一個權利要求限定于數(shù)學方法的特定“技術應用”，那么該數(shù)學方法能對發(fā)明的技術特點有貢獻。在此情形下，當EPO審查創(chuàng)造性時，數(shù)學方法能夠與現(xiàn)有技術的區(qū)別開來。
當撰寫處于專利適格性的邊界地帶的發(fā)明的專利申請時，我們建議描述并要求保護該發(fā)明的任何技術應用實例。例如，如果可以想象發(fā)明能用于控制特定的技術系統(tǒng)（例如工業(yè)過程、或通用計算機之外的裝置）、測量物理特征、或優(yōu)化數(shù)據(jù)通信或存儲，那么這些就應該公開。以此方式撰寫的申請，通過將權利要求限定于發(fā)明的特定應用實例，將提供克服美國§101異議或歐洲創(chuàng)造性異議的可能性。
功能性權利要求語言
十分常見的是，針對計算機實施的發(fā)明的權利要求包括功能性語言，諸如“用于執(zhí)行X的手段”。
在歐洲，使用功能性語言常常是撰寫權利要求的最簡單方法，這樣的撰寫能夠覆蓋一些軟件實現(xiàn)的發(fā)明的所有實現(xiàn)方式。使用功能性權利要求語言也為EPO的《審查指南》所允許（例如第F章第IV部分第3.9.1節(jié)（Chapter F-IV, 3.9.1）），從中可見對于實踐中常見的不同類型措辭（例如，“用于……的手段”、“適于……”、“配置成……”等等）并無特殊偏好。
然而，長期以來，功能性權利要求語言在美國都存在問題。在美國法典第35號標題第112條f項（35 U.S.C. § 112(f) ）下，一個權利要求如果記載了用于執(zhí)行一功能的“手段”或“步驟”，但是沒有記載執(zhí)行該功能的結構，則會被理解為覆蓋了說明書中描述的結構（以及其任何等同）。因此，盡管功能性權利要求語言在歐洲通常具有寬的保護范圍，但是在美國的保護范圍可能窄得多。
在撰寫權利要求時應當避免使用哪些功能性術語方面，USPTO關于清楚性的指導意見提供了有益的建議。除了避免在§112(f)提到的“手段”和“步驟”之外，其他應避免的術語包括：
“用于……的機構”、“用于……的模塊”、“用于……的設備”、“用于……的單元”、“用于……的部件”、“用于……的元件”、“用于……的元件”、“用于……的裝置” 、“用于……的機器”、和“用于……的系統(tǒng)”。
然而，該指導意見指出，并不存在必然導致根據(jù)§112(f)解釋的權利要求的固定術語列表，也不存在必然避免如此解釋的固定術語列表。
當撰寫權利要求時，我們建議謹慎使用功能性語言。在合適的情況下，應考慮使用指示結構性限定的術語。例如，權利要求術語“用于計算的手段”可替換表述為“處理器，配置成計算”。后者的表述范圍更寬，并且在美國和歐洲都能被接受。為了保持在歐洲使用更廣泛的功能性語言的選項，說明書的“發(fā)明概要”部分可包括使用“用于……的手段”語言描述的附加發(fā)明聲明。
公開內容
關于清楚性的指導意見還強調確保專利說明書包含發(fā)明的完整公開的重要性。
在歐洲，專利說明書需要以足夠清楚和完整地公開發(fā)明內容以使得本領域技術人員能實現(xiàn)發(fā)明（歐洲專利公約第83條和第100條b款（Articles 83 and 100(b) EPC））。未能滿足該要求是專利申請被駁回或撤銷的一個理由。然而，實際上EPO很少基于該理由駁回針對計算機實施的發(fā)明的專利申請或撤銷此類專利。
盡管EPO的審查方法對專利撰寫者施加的要求極少，USPTO關于清楚性的指導意見提醒撰寫者注意，在撰寫要在美國提交的計算機實施的發(fā)明的專利申請時，說明書應公開用于執(zhí)行要求保護的功能的算法。就此而言，指導意見將算法定義為“用于解決邏輯或數(shù)學問題或執(zhí)行任務的有限步驟序列”。
算法可被表達為數(shù)學公式、文字、流程圖、或其他任何適當?shù)男问?。應謹慎確保所公開的算法足以執(zhí)行要求保護的所有功能。未能公開算法可導致美國專利或申請的權利要求在美國法典第35號標題第112條b項（35 U.S.C. § 112(b)）下被認為是不確定的，并且在美國法典第35號標題第112條a項（35 U.S.C. § 112(a) ）下被認為是缺乏書面說明。
通常，我們建議通過（附圖中的）流程圖和流程圖的每一步驟的詳細書面說明的結合來提供關于算法的所需公開。至少，流程圖應包括對應于獨立方法權利要求的每一步的步驟。理想情況下，流程圖還應包括對應于從屬權利要求的每一步的步驟，但是，為了在EPO中允許更多的修改靈活性，說明書應清楚指出哪些步驟是可選的。
附注/Notes:
美國專利商標局針對計算機實施的發(fā)明的權利要求的主題適格性和清楚性的審查實踐的指導意見（英文），見以下鏈接：
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/07/2018-28282/2019-revised-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-guidance;
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/01/07/2018-28283/examining-computer-implemented-functional-claim-limitations-for-compliance-with-35-usc-112
附：英文全文
A European View of the USPTO's Guidance
on Computer-Implemented Inventions
On 7 January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") published two guidance notes on its practice for examining subject matter eligibility and clarity of claims for computer implemented inventions. In this article, we compare the USPTO's new guidance with the established practice of the European Patent Office ("EPO"), and provide practical suggestions for drafting patent applications that will satisfy the requirements of both patent offices.
Subject Matter Eligibility
The EPO has a long-established and consistent practice for examining the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, which is based on a body of case law that has evolved gradually over many decades. In contrast, the USPTO's practice for examining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 has been less consistent, and has seen particular upheaval following the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International in 2014.
In order to improve the consistency and predictability of the USPTO’s application of § 101, the new guidance on subject matter eligibility identifies the following three "groupings" of patent ineligible "abstract ideas":
a) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
b) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
c) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The USPTO's new "groupings" closely correspond to some of the exclusions from patentability that have existed in Europe for over forty years. For example, the "mathematical concepts" and "mental processes" groupings identified by the USPTO are similar to the exclusions on "mathematical methods" and "methods for performing mental acts" that are set out in Article 52(2)(a) and (c) EPC. Although the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping does not at first glance correspond to one of the European exclusions, the USPTO's examples of such methods all relate to subject matter that would be excluded from patentability In Europe as being a "method for doing business" under Article 52(2)(c) EPC.
We anticipate that the USPTO's guidance on subject matter eligibility will lead to a greater divergence between USPTO and EPO practice. In view of the previously-mentioned similarities between the USPTO's new "groupings" and the existing exclusions in Europe, most inventions that are found to be unpatentable by the USPTO will continue to be unpatentable in Europe. However, there are likely to be areas of technology that are unpatentable in accordance with the EPO's established practice, but which fall outside the USPTO's groupings. For example, graphical user interfaces (GUIs) are difficult to patent at the EPO, but seem not to be covered by the USPTO’s groupings. For those areas of technology, we expect the USPTO to adopt a more permissive approach than the EPO, thus increasing the divergence of the two offices' practices.
Claims for a "Practical Application of a Judicial Exception"
An interesting aspect of the guidance on subject matter eligibility is the creation of a new safe harbour for claims directed to a "practical application of a judicial exception".
In Step 2A of the USPTO's test for assessing subject matter eligibility, it is necessary to ask whether a claim is "directed to a judicial exception", such as a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea. The claim is patent eligible if it is found not to be directed to a judicial exception. Conversely, further analysis of the claim is needed if it is found to be directed to a judicial exception, with the possibility that the claim will be deemed patent ineligible.
In accordance with the guidance on subject matter eligibility, a claim is judged not to be directed to a judicial exception if the claim recites a practical application of that judicial exception (see Figure 1, below). The claim is thus found to be patent eligible.
The USPTO’s guidance mirrors recent changes to the EPO’s practice for examining mathematical methods, as set out in the November 2018 edition of the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (Chapter G-II, 3.3). Under the EPO’s new practice, a mathematical method can contribute to the technical character of an invention if the claim is limited to a specific “technical application” of the mathematical method. In this case, the mathematical method is capable of distinguishing over the prior art when inventive step is examined by the EPO.
When drafting patent applications for inventions on the borderline of patent eligibility, we suggest that any technical use cases of the invention are described and claimed. For example, if the invention could conceivably be used to control a specific technical system (such as an industrial process, or a device other than a general purpose computer), measure a physical property, or optimise the communication or storage of data, then this should be disclosed. Drafting the application in this manner will provide a possibility of overcoming a § 101 rejection in the U.S., or an inventive step
objection in Europe, by limiting the claims to a specific use case of the invention.
Functional Claim Language
It is common for claims for computer-implemented inventions to include functional language, such as “means for performing X”.
In Europe, the use of functional language is often the simplest way to draft claims that cover all of the many ways in which some inventions can be implemented in software. The use of functional claim language is permitted by the Guidelines for Examination in the EPO (Chapter F-IV, 3.9.1), which notes that there is no particular preference among
the different types of wording that are commonly seen in practice (e.g. “means for”, “adapted to”, “configured to”, etc.).
However, it has long been the case that functional claim language is problematic in the US. Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), a claim that recites a “means” or “step” for performing a function, but without reciting the structure that performs that function, is construed to cover the structure that is described in the specification (and any equivalents thereof). Thus, whereas functional claim language typically has a broad scope in Europe, it can have a much a narrower scope in the U.S.
The USPTO’s guidance on clarity provides helpful suggestions on functional terms that should be avoided when drafting claims. In addition to avoiding the words “means” and “step” that are mentioned in § 112(f) itself, other terms to avoid include:
“mechanism for”, “module for”, “device for”, “unit for”, “component for”, “element for”, “member for”, “apparatus for”, “machine for” and “system for”.
However, the guidance points out that there is no fixed list of terms that will always result in a claim being interpreted in accordance with § 112(f), nor is there a fixed list of terms that will always avoid such interpretation.
When drafting claims, we suggest that functional language is used with care. Where appropriate, one should consider using terminology that implies a structural limitation. For example, the claim term "means for calculating" could alternatively be expressed as "a processor configured to calculate". The latter wording is broad, yet should be acceptable in both the U.S. and Europe. To keep open the option to use broader functional language in Europe, the "Summary" section of the description could include additional statements of invention that use "means for" language.
Content of the Disclosure
The guidance on clarity also emphasises the importance of ensuring that a patent specification contains a complete disclosure of the invention.
In Europe, it is necessary for the patent specification to disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out by a person skilled in the art (Articles 83 and 100(b) EPC). Failure to comply with this requirement is a ground for refusing an application or revoking a patent. In practice, however, it is rare for the EPO to invoke this ground when refusing applications, or revoking patents, for computer-implemented inventions.
Whereas the EPO's approach to examination places very few requirements on the draftsperson, the USPTO's guidance on clarity is a reminder that, when drafting a patent application for a computer-implemented invention that will be filed in the U.S., the specification should disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed functionality. In this regard, the guidance defines an algorithm as "a finite sequence of steps for solving a logical or mathematical problem or performing a task".
The algorithm may be expressed as a mathematical formula, as prose, as a flow chart, or in any other suitable manner. Care should be taken to ensure that the disclosed algorithm is sufficient to perform all of the functionality that is claimed. Failure to disclose an algorithm can result in claims of the U.S. patent or application being found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and lacking written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
In general, we suggest providing the necessary disclosure of the algorithm through a combination of a flow chart (in the drawings) and a detailed written description of each step of the flow chart. At the very least, the flow chart should include a step corresponding to each step of the independent method claim(s). The flow chart should ideally also include a step corresponding to each step of the dependent method claims but, to allow more flexibility for amendment at the EPO, the description should make clear which steps are optional.
來源：IPRdaily中文網(wǎng)（IPRdaily.cn）
作者：Dr Philip Cupitt Partner 麥仕奇英國伯明翰辦公室
編輯：IPRdaily趙珍 校對：IPRdaily縱橫君
“投稿”請投郵箱“iprdaily@163.com”
「關于IPRdaily」
IPRdaily成立于2014年，是全球影響力的知識產權媒體+產業(yè)服務平臺，致力于連接全球知識產權人，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、政府機構、律所、事務所、科研院校等全球近50多萬產業(yè)用戶（國內25萬+海外30萬）；同時擁有近百萬條高質量的技術資源+專利資源，通過媒體構建全球知識產權資產信息第一入口。2016年獲啟賦資本領投和天使匯跟投的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。轉載此文章須經(jīng)權利人同意，并附上出處與作者信息。文章不代表IPRdaily.cn立場，如若轉載，請注明出處：“http://globalwellnesspartner.com/”
共發(fā)表文章716篇文章不錯，犒勞下辛苦的作者吧
- 我也說兩句
- 還可以輸入140個字
