美國與台灣有關專利進步性判斷標準之研究

The Study Related to the Judgement Standards of the Inventive Step of Patents in the United States and Taiwan

周伯翰(Bo-Han Jou)

進步性 ； 非顯而易見性 ； 專利 ； 輔助考量因素 ； 專利審查 ； inventive step ； nonobviousness ； patent ； secondary considerations ； patent examination

高大法學論叢

16卷1期（2020 / 09 / 01）

97 - 177+179-183

繁體中文

在專利審查與專利審判中，進步性（非顯而易見性）之判斷經常出現爭議卻又缺乏客觀化與普遍化之適用標準，所以關於進步性之判斷標準向來為專利實務界與司法實務界所關注之議題，因此專利實務界與司法實務界不斷謀求明確且合宜之標準以適用於判斷系爭請求項是否具有進步性。美國的判例法對於進步性之判斷標準的法律見解歷經數次變動，而美國專利商標局乃配合該等法律見解修正其公布的「專利審查程序手冊」之內容；此外，台灣的司法實務界與智慧財產局對於進步性之判斷標準經常會參考美國的判例法及美國專利商標局修正公布的「專利審查程序手冊」建立的法律原則。因此本文將就美國有關進步性之判斷標準的重要案例及相關規定加以分析與說明，並就台灣有關進步性之判斷標準的重要案例及相關規定加以分析與說明，再就美國與台灣有關進步性之判斷標準進行充分地比較與深入地分析，以便就有關進步性之判斷標準歸納整理出較為清晰且適當的法律原則，以供台灣的司法實務界與智慧財產局在審理有關進步性之爭議案件時參考。

In the patent examination and patent trial, the judgement of the inventive step (nonobviousness) of patents often appears controversies, but the judgement of the inventive step of patents lacks the applicable standards for objectification and universalization, so the judgement standards of the inventive step of patents are always the concerned issues to the patent practitioners and judicial practitioners. Therefore, the patent practitioners and judicial practitioners constantly seek clear and appropriate standards in order to apple to judge whether the disputed claims have the inventive step of patents. The U.S. case laws related to the legal opinions about the judgement standards of the inventive step of patents have changed several times, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office modifies the content of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure in order to match such legal opinions; moreover, Taiwan's judicial practitioners and the Intellectual Property Office deciding the judgement standards of the inventive step of patents usually refer to the legal principles from the U.S. case laws and the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure modified and published by the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Consequently, above all, this article will analyze and explain the important cases and relative provisions related to the judgement standards of the inventive step of patents in the United States; this article will analyze and explain the important cases and relative provisions related to the judgement standards of the inventive step of patents in Taiwan; then, this article will fully compare and deeply analyze the judgement standards of the inventive step of patents in the United States and Taiwan, so as to summarize and organize relatively clear and appropriate legal principles related to the judgement standards of the inventive step of patents, so that when the Taiwan's judicial practitioners and the Intellectual Property Office try the disputed cases related to the inventive step of patents, such legal principles can be referred.

1. 沈宗倫(2013)。由專利法教示因果關係論專利進步性：以組合專利與類似組合專利為中心。臺大法學論叢，42(2)，317-379。
   連結：
2. 謝國廉(2020)。論專利法對人工智慧之保護─歐美實務之觀點。高大法學論叢，15(2)，1-38。
   連結：
3. 謝銘洋(2016)。智慧財產權法發展專題回顧：近年來我國智慧財產判決回顧。臺大法學論叢，45(特刊)，1727-1771。
   連結：
4. The Nonobvious Meaning of Patent “Nonobviousness”, at https://www.morningtrans.com/the-nonobvious-meaning-of-patent-nonobviousness/ (last visited 10/12/2019).
5. Expansion of the Blocking-Patent Doctrine, at https://www.venable.com/ insights/publications/2020/04/expansion-of-the-blocking-patent doctrine (last visited 04/13/2020).
6. ‘Blocking Patent’ Doctrine May Now Apply to All Technologies, at https://www.iptechblog.com/2019/12/blocking-patent-doctrinemay-now-apply-to-all-technologies/ (last visited 04/13/2020).
7. Quinn, Gene, KSR the 5th Anniversary: One Supremely Obvious Mess, IP Watchdog 1 (2012), available at https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2012/04/29/ksr-the-5th-anniversary-one-supremely-obvious-mess/id=24456/ (last visited 10/15/2019).
8. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Chapter 700, Ninth Edition, at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-0700.pdf (last visited 08/18/2019).
9. Non-Obviousness, at https://www.justia.com/intellectual-property/patents/ patentability-requirements/non-obviousness/ (last visited 10/13/ 2019).
10. Bolt, Ashley Allman(2015).Combating Hindsight Reconstruction in Patent Prosecution.Emory Law Journal,64,1137-1173.
11. Hacon, Richard,Pagenberg, Jochen(2008).CONCISE EUROPEAN PATENT LAW.Philadelphia:Kluwer Law International.
12. Hand, David,賴盈滿（譯）(2014).大不可能法則：誰說樂透不會中兩次.台北:大塊文化.
13. Harmon, Robert L.,Lydigsen, Laura A.(2019).PATENTS AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT.New York:Bloomberg Law.
14. Kühnen, Thomas,Peterreins, Frank D.(Trans.)(2013).PATENT LITIGATION PROCEEDINGS IN GERMANY: A HANDBOOK FOR PRACTITIONERS.London:Wildy & Sons Ltd.
15. Lee, Peter(2010).Patent Law and the Two Cultures.Yale Law Journal,120,2-201.
16. Mills, Jeffrey K.,Fitzsimmons, Jason A,Rodkey, Kevin(2010).Protecting Nanotechnology Inventions: Prosecuting in an Unpredictable World.Nanotechnology Law & Business,7,223-238.
17. Minssen, Timo(2008).The U.S. Examination of Nonobviousness after KSR v. Teleflex with Special Emphasis on DNA-related Inventions.International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law,39,886-916.
18. Mueller, Janice M.(2016).PATENT LAW.New York:Aspen Publisher.
19. O'Shea, Brendan Seth O'Brien(2017).What Is Obvious: Empirical Assessment of KSR'S Impact.The American Intellectual Property Law Association Quarterly Journal,45,517-554.
20. Petherbridge, Lee,Wagner, R. Polk(2007).The Federal Circuit and Patentability: An Empirical Assessment of the Law of Obvious.Texas Law Review,85,2051-2110.
21. Roese, Neal J.,Vohs, Kathleen D.(2012).Hindsight Bias.Perspectives on Psychological Science,7,411-426.
22. Seymore, Sean B.(2012).The Null Patent.William & Mary Law Review,53,2041-2105.
23. Sheets, Eli M(2012).A Little Common Sense Is A Dangerous Thing: The Inherent Inconsistency Between KSR And Current Official Notice Policy.University of New Hampshire Law Review,10,163-192.
24. Sikora, Mike(2018).Mayo, Myriad, and a Muddled Analysis: Do Recent Changes to the Patentable Subject Matter Doctrine Threaten Patent Protections for Epigenetics-based Inventions.Minnesota Law Review,102,2229-2268.
25. Simon, Brenda M.(2014).Rules, Standards, and the Reality of Obviousness.Case Western Reserve Law Review,65,25-61.
26. The United States Patent and Trademark Office, Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP), Chapter 2100, Ninth Edition, at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/mpep-2100.pdf (last visited 08/18/2019).
27. Wellons, Hugh Butler,Copple, Robert F.,Wofford, William Neal(2019).BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE LAW.Chicago:ABA Book Publishing.
28. Wong, Shaun D.(2019).Flexible Yet Tailored: Developing a Standard for Patent Nonobviousness in Biological and Chemical Technologies Consistent with KSR.University of California Davis Law Review,52,2207-2238.
29. 呂紹凡(2014)。判斷專利進步性要件之再檢討。萬國法律，193，41-50。
30. 宋皇志(2016)。專利法中「發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者」之法實證研究。政大法學評論，146，53-125。
31. 李素華,張哲倫(2015)。專利進步性判斷之法學方法論─美、德之借鏡及台灣實務之檢討。月旦法學雜誌，242，227-259。
32. 李懷農(2018)。建構進步性審查之正當法律程序。專利師，32，1-15。
33. 沈宗倫(2017)。專利進步性評價的新視野與展望─簡評我國進步性審查基準之修訂。萬國法律，214，25-36。
34. 林洲富(2019).專利法─案例式.台北:五南.
35. 張仁平(2018)。進步性分析中有關「無法預期之結果」的主張及判斷。專利師，34，58-82。
36. 張哲倫(2018)。判斷進步性應界定通常知識者之學理基礎─最高行政法院在 105 年度判字第 503 號判決之啟發暨智慧財產法院之回應。月旦法學雜誌，282，149-170。
37. 莊智惠(2017)。進步性判斷方式及論理之探討─以發明專利進步性審查基準修訂為例。智慧財產權月刊，225，6-23。
38. 陳宜誠（2014），《發明專利進步性判準的演進》，載於北美智權報http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Expert_Column/PE-108.htm （最後瀏覽日：05/23/2020）。
39. 湯舒涵(2013)。國立交通大學管理學院科技法律學程。
40. 舒安居（2014），《專利髒話不要說—你所不知的專利禁忌》，載於科技產業資訊室， http://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx? PostID=10361 （最後瀏覽日：10/12/2019）。
41. 經濟部智慧財產局（2017）。《專利審查基準》。台北：作者自版。
42. 熊誦梅(2011)。眾裡尋他千百度：談所屬技術領域中之通常知識者─從最高行政法院九十八年度判字第一二七七號判決談起。月旦法學雜誌，191，129-144。
43. 劉懿嫻(2010)。美國專利法非顯而易知性之新觀點：相同條件下的客觀指標。科技法學評論，7(2)，181-219。
44. 謝祥揚(2015)。「進步性」判斷的思考層次─從最高行政法院104 年度判字第 214 號判決談起。萬國法律，203，46-60。
45. 簡秀如,蔡亦強(2017)。進步性專利審查基準修正：「複數引證之結合動機」判斷原則的細緻化。理律法律雜誌雙月刊，7，6-8。