News: Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications

Patent News of the Day:

USPTO Request for Comments on Preparation of Patent Applications  (Federal Register)


為了提升審查的品質，美國專利商標局於2013年1月15日發布通知，請公眾就下列的專利說明書撰寫實務提供意見。茲整理重點並附拙見如下：

A. Clarifying the Scope of the Claims


1. Presenting claims in a multi-part format by way of a standardized template that places each claim component in separate, clearly marked, and designated fields. 

個人猜測這應該不是指two-part form，而是只要能夠明確地用sub-paragraph form把前言、轉折語與主體部份，以及把每個元件能清楚的區分開來就好。如果是這樣，那難度不高，很多人本來就是這樣寫的。


2. Identifying corresponding support in the specification for each of the claim limitations utilizing, for example, a claim chart or the standardized template described above.

Claim chart本來是侵權分析作claim construction時用的，原本就會有一欄是claim用語對應的說明書內容，現在居然申請時也建議要這樣作了。不過如果說明書寫的好，這應該不是問題，畢竟每個claim term在說明書的支持本來就是越清楚越好，免得以後起爭議。


3. Indicating whether examples in the specification are intended to be limiting or merely illustrative.

除非特別狀況，不然一般都會強調說明書的例子只是說明性，而非限制性。不過......還是會有人不注意這點就是。


4. Identifying whether the claim preamble is intended to be a limitation on claim scope. 

前言的內容到底具不具有限制性這點，確實可能有認定的問題，現在USPTO要求申請人自己說清楚，可能是好事吧。


5. Expressly identifying clauses within particular claim limitations for which the inventor intends to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and pointing out where in the specification corresponding structures, materials, or acts are disclosed that are linked to the identified 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitations.

關於means-plus-function claim，這樣作其實還不錯，而且可以避免說明書中沒有對應結構的狀況。


6. Using textual and graphical notation systems known in the art to disclose algorithms in support of computer-implemented claim limitations, such as C-like pseudo-code or XML-like schemas for textual notation and Unified Modeling Language (UML) for graphical notation.

這很妙，完全是衝著軟體專利來的。如果可以用pseudo code或schemas，那真的方便很多，不過有很多人寫軟體專利的人，連流程圖的畫不好了，能否妥善運用pseudo code或schemas來支持claim，就是大問題了。


B. Clarifying the Meaning of Claim Terms in the Specification 

1. Indicating whether terms of degree—such as substantially, approximately, about, essentially—have a lay or technical meaning and explaining the scope of such terms. 

這個以前的觀念，是熟悉該項技術者如果都知道範圍在哪，就沒有indefinite的問題。現在USPTO等於要求申請人一開始就說清楚，不用等到訴訟時再爭辯。也許是好事吧，不過現在大家是都用習慣了，以後如果要用，可能要傷腦筋了。


2. Including in the specification a glossary of potentially ambiguous, distinctive, and specialized terms used  in the specification and/or claims, particularly for inventions related to certain technologies, such as software.

這等於要申請人自己列出哪些用語是 "潛在的模糊" ...... 我想沒有人會自己承認吧。大家都會覺得自己寫得很清楚不模糊吧。


3. Designating, at the time of filing the application, a default dictionary or dictionaries (e.g., a technical dictionary and a non-technical dictionary) to be used in ascertaining the meaning of the claim terms.


這很妙。原本是在訴訟雙方才會各拿各的字典，甚至有人還曾就 "字典到底是內部還是外部證據" 這件事上訴到CAFC過，現在是要求申請人自己在一開始就拿自己的字典出來。實務到底怎麼操作，靜待觀察吧。