對(duì)美國(guó)專(zhuān)利商標(biāo)局主張可預(yù)見(jiàn)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(diǎn)，未經(jīng)作者許可，禁止轉(zhuǎn)載，文章不代表IPRdaily立場(chǎng)#

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(duì)美國(guó)專(zhuān)利商標(biāo)局主張可預(yù)見(jiàn)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(rèn)為如果專(zhuān)利審查員和委員會(huì)因權(quán)利要求與現(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻(xiàn)“類(lèi)似”而主張可預(yù)見(jiàn)（anticipated），但未提供進(jìn)一步解釋或事實(shí)證據(jù)，則不足以支持該結(jié)論。對(duì)權(quán)利要求采用最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時(shí)應(yīng)保持與說(shuō)明書(shū)范圍的一致。

本月聯(lián)邦巡回法院對(duì)專(zhuān)利審判和上訴委員會(huì)（Patent Trial and Appeal Board，“委員會(huì)” ）的上訴案件進(jìn)行了裁決，In re Hodges, Appeal No. 2017-1434 (Fed. Cir. 2018).案件中“委員會(huì)”維持了專(zhuān)利審查員的認(rèn)定：因現(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻(xiàn)中的元素與權(quán)利要求限制“類(lèi)似（similar）”，所以全部權(quán)利要求被現(xiàn)有技術(shù)所預(yù)見(jiàn)（anticipated）和/或顯而易見(jiàn)（obvious）；聯(lián)邦巡回法院認(rèn)為“委員會(huì)”對(duì)權(quán)利要求可被預(yù)見(jiàn)沒(méi)有提供進(jìn)一步解釋?zhuān)虼瞬蛔阋灾С终J(rèn)定并撤銷(xiāo)了“委員會(huì)”的判決。

本上訴案涉及兩項(xiàng)重要的專(zhuān)利審查法律原則問(wèn)題：1）為證明權(quán)利要求被現(xiàn)有技術(shù)所預(yù)見(jiàn)，美國(guó)專(zhuān)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(xiàn)所披露（inherently disclosed）？與2）USPTO對(duì)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(shí)證據(jù)支持“預(yù)見(jiàn)”裁決。任何對(duì)權(quán)利要求的要素與被引用參考文獻(xiàn)揭露之信息具有相似性的主張，必須通過(guò)展示引用參考文獻(xiàn)如何本質(zhì)上披露權(quán)利要求主題來(lái)支持該主張。關(guān)于對(duì)權(quán)利要求的解釋?zhuān)ㄔ赫J(rèn)為盡管USPTO對(duì)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(shuō)明書(shū)（specification）相一致。

權(quán)利要求主題本質(zhì)上被參考文獻(xiàn)披露

Kenneth Hodges的專(zhuān)利申請(qǐng)覆蓋改良的排水閥（drain valve）。222號(hào)申請(qǐng)權(quán)利要求1：定義進(jìn)口閥座的一個(gè)閥體（a valve body that defines an inlet seat）。

在駁回申請(qǐng)人的權(quán)利要求時(shí)，專(zhuān)利審查員與委員會(huì)依據(jù)兩份現(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻(xiàn)（Rasmussen 和 Frantz），認(rèn)為權(quán)利要求被預(yù)見(jiàn)或?qū)煞莠F(xiàn)有技術(shù)參考文獻(xiàn)結(jié)合導(dǎo)致權(quán)利要求顯而易見(jiàn)。對(duì)于Rasmussen參考文獻(xiàn)，審查員認(rèn)為圖7（FIG 7 請(qǐng)參照附件原文）中的無(wú)標(biāo)記閥門(mén)（FIG 7 紅色）與本申請(qǐng)中權(quán)利要求的配置類(lèi)似（similar to the positioning），因此參考文獻(xiàn)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(huì)關(guān)于權(quán)利要求被預(yù)見(jiàn)的裁決，同時(shí)撤銷(xiāo)（vacated）委員會(huì)顯而易見(jiàn)的裁決。法院認(rèn)為委員會(huì)既沒(méi)有使用事實(shí)證據(jù)支持相似性的主張；也沒(méi)有進(jìn)一步解釋如何使本領(lǐng)域普通技術(shù)人員“在沒(méi)有過(guò)度實(shí)驗(yàn)的情況下”，根據(jù)Rasumssen參考文獻(xiàn)圖7中的無(wú)標(biāo)記閥門(mén)的配置實(shí)施本發(fā)明。法院認(rèn)為對(duì)Rasumssen參考文獻(xiàn)唯一正確的解釋為：無(wú)標(biāo)記閥門(mén)內(nèi)的進(jìn)口閥座是外部排水閥的外殼。因此，進(jìn)口閥座不能由閥體來(lái)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(xiàng)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(méi)有過(guò)度實(shí)驗(yàn)的情況下實(shí)施所主張的發(fā)明，才具有對(duì)權(quán)利要求的“預(yù)見(jiàn)”。

最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)

222號(hào)申請(qǐng)權(quán)利要求1：一個(gè)生成信號(hào)的傳感器（a sensor that generates a signal）。委員會(huì)采納了專(zhuān)利審查員對(duì)“信號(hào)（signal）”的解釋?zhuān)阂环N行為、事件、或引起/刺激某些行為的原因。委員會(huì)同時(shí)支持審查員認(rèn)為的權(quán)利要求被Frantz參考文獻(xiàn)所預(yù)見(jiàn)。

 在駁回委員會(huì)對(duì)“信號(hào)” 一詞的解釋時(shí)，聯(lián)邦巡回法院指出委員會(huì)的解釋與說(shuō)明書(shū)不相符。委員會(huì)對(duì)“信號(hào)”的解釋不合理，因?yàn)檎f(shuō)明書(shū)并沒(méi)有提出信號(hào)本身可以構(gòu)成壓力表指針的移動(dòng)，以回應(yīng)傳感壓力。因此，委員會(huì)對(duì)“信號(hào)”牽強(qiáng)的解釋與申請(qǐng)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(xiàng)對(duì)權(quán)利要求采用最寬合理解釋標(biāo)準(zhǔn)受說(shuō)明書(shū)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(duì)：IPRdaily縱橫君

推薦閱讀

2017全球區(qū)塊鏈企業(yè)專(zhuān)利排行榜（前100名）

2017年企業(yè)發(fā)明授權(quán)專(zhuān)利排行榜（前100名）

2017全國(guó)申請(qǐng)人確權(quán)商標(biāo)持有量排名（前100名）

“投稿”請(qǐng)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(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)媒體+產(chǎn)業(yè)服務(wù)平臺(tái)，致力于連接全球知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)人，用戶(hù)匯聚了中國(guó)、美國(guó)、德國(guó)、俄羅斯、以色列、澳大利亞、新加坡、日本、韓國(guó)等15個(gè)國(guó)家和地區(qū)的高科技公司、成長(zhǎng)型科技企業(yè)IP高管、研發(fā)人員、法務(wù)、政府機(jī)構(gòu)、律所、事務(wù)所、科研院校等全球近50多萬(wàn)產(chǎn)業(yè)用戶(hù)（國(guó)內(nèi)25萬(wàn)+海外30萬(wàn)）；同時(shí)擁有近百萬(wàn)條高質(zhì)量的技術(shù)資源+專(zhuān)利資源，通過(guò)媒體構(gòu)建全球知識(shí)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(lái)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(chǎng)，如若轉(zhuǎn)載，請(qǐng)注明出處：“http://globalwellnesspartner.com/”