請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

16 posts / 0 new
最新回應
Peter Rabbit
Peter Rabbit 的照片
請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

:-P 請問站長,日前接獲一美國代理人回覆 :

"From the point of view of patent laws, there is no requirement that the entire range covered by a claim must be operable. As long as a reasonable range that is covered by a claim is operable, the claim complies with the requierment of the law."

這樣是對的嗎? 亦即,claim的範圍可以涵蓋到不見得可以實施之部分。

Thanks!!!!

Peter Rabbit

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

根據個人淺見
operable並不是指enablement
你說的可實施應是指enablement
或許有其他先進知道operable是指什麼?

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

恩~ 我也來提供個人淺見.
U.S.C 112 並沒有說得很明白,是不是 "claim" 要 enable...
不過,我記得 MPEP 裡面有講到 claim 需 enable.

待我查到,再明白指出吧 ^^||
或是有高人能幫忙指點 :-)

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

The utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101 mandates that any patentable invention be useful and, accordingly, the subject matter of the claim must be operable.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=fed&navby=case&no=981082

丈二和尚
丈二和尚 的照片
請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

The utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101 mandates that any patentable invention be useful and, accordingly, the subject matter of the claim must be operable.

丈二和尚
丈二和尚 的照片
請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

MPEP 2164.08(b)

...............A disclosure of a large number of operable embodiments and the identification of a single inoperative embodiment did not render a claim broader than the enabled scope because undue experimentation was not involved in determining those embodiments that were operable. ...........

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

請問丈二禪師
這裡的operable是指什麼?
有case或文章討論到這個問題嗎?

謝謝指導

訪客 (未確認)
訪客 的照片
Re: 請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

"operable" 應該是"可運作"
如2164.08(b)中所述 "The presence of inoperative embodiments within the scope of a claim does not necessarily render a claim nonenabled."
即專利範圍即使涵蓋到無法運作實例之部分也不必然無效
需權衡其是否需要"undue experimentation"

我想美國代理人是基於申請實務上的經驗,認為只要專利所涵蓋者為合理範圍並符合專利要件即可於申請中獲准。但合理範圍之拿捏需要經驗,即使通過將來可主張的範圍也不及於無法運作實例。

ides13
ides13 的照片
請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

laorence-2 wrote:請問丈二禪師
這裡的operable是指什麼?
有case或文章討論到這個問題嗎?

謝謝指導

好久以前看過這個討論,一直對它印象深刻,因為對於operable和enable這兩個字,實在稿不懂區別,小弟最近剛好看到一篇討論“inoperative”、”enablement”區別的判例。

要學會“用字”還真難,感覺上這幾個字的意思都很像,可是法官卻用來表達他們想要表達的不同意思。

http://www.chanesq.com/cases/cases16.html

The district court essentially concluded that the invention claimed in the patents at issue simply did not work, that is, could not clean wafers, and therefore it would require undue experimentation to carry out the invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2000). This court has recognized the relationship between the enablement requirement of § 112 and the utility requirement of § 101. See, e.g., In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[I]f the claims in an application fail to meet the utility requirement because the invention is inoperative, they also fail to meet the enablement requirement because a person skilled in the art cannot practice the invention"); EMI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, however, the district court similarly set the standard for utility too high for this invention. While the district court's major premise is correct that an inoperable invention is not enabled, the district court erred in its minor premise that the claimed invention is inoperable and lacks utility.

The inoperability standard for utility applies primarily to claims with impossible limitations. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims found inoperable because they require violating the principle of conservation of mass); Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (claims to a perpetual motion machine ruled inoperable). Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.

Even if the single Full Flow embodiment does not achieve complete cleaning, that alone would not render the invention inoperative.

joefox1212
joefox1212 的照片
請教 claim 內容之可實施性問題

原版主題到的代理人來信所述
我想那位代理人所要表達的意思應該是claim所涵蓋的範圍不一定都要有具體的實施例支持,
這不是專利法中所要求的,只要給予的是可以被說明書合理支持的範圍就OK.
operable和enablement其實差不多,但有時候會有點下位和上位的意味.
前者可能用在說明書中實施例的描述,後者可能用在指整個發明,這樣類似的意思.

一點小淺見,供參考

turnippei
turnippei 的照片
在找一些資料時看到這個很久前的討論, 愈看觀念愈亂....

在找一些資料時看到這個很久前的討論,
愈看觀念愈亂......
首先就 MPEP 2164.07 的內容來看,
---------------
For example, if an applicant has claimed a process of treating a certain disease condition with a certain compound and provided a credible basis for asserting that the compound is useful in that regard, but to actually practice the invention as claimed a person skilled in the relevant art would have to engage in an undue amount of experimentation, the claim may be defective under 35 U.S.C. 112, but not 35 U.S.C. 101.
---------------
Utility 似乎是針對「用途」而言,而Enablement是針對「能否根據說明書、claim做出來」。

但上面 ides13 提到的例子中有一段敘述跟另一網站提及的完全相反:
"The inoperability standard for utility applies primarily to claims with impossible limitations"
這是指違反 utility,§ 101的部分,

但另一網站的例子是: (http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/1880)
"a claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under § 112. Moreover, when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either § 101 or § 112 of 35 U.S.C."
這裏提到的是若有「limitation impossible to meet」是違反 § 112,而不是§ 101。

看來兩個都是判例,卻是相反的判斷......
真的愈來愈混亂了,
有否前輩可以釋疑啊?
感謝!!

頁面

Log in or register to post comments