從比較法觀點論發明專利進步性要件

Abstract

進步性是專利要件之一，若申請專利之發明為所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者，依申請日前之先前技術所能輕易完成時，該申請專利之發明即無法取得專利。惟應如何判斷，美國專利實務係以1966年，美國聯邦最高法院在Graham v. Deere一案所揭櫫之判斷要素及原則為標準；歐洲專利局則以「問題解決法」為判斷標準，兩者各有所長。本論文從比較法觀點探討其等實務及學理上所運用之原則、方法，比較其間之差異，再回溯研究我國之情況。 本文認為，我國專利進步性要件之判斷與歐、美不論在判斷要素及原則方面，大致上與歐、美二大法系在意涵上已然實質調和，惟仍有不足之處，在要素方面：可考慮增列申請專利之發明與先前技術間之差異，以導正專利實務忽略差異之比較，及為因應現代研發工作之特性，在一般技術水準此一要素上，可考慮採行歐洲專利公約所稱之團隊之概念；在判斷何謂「輕易完成」方面：可仿歐洲專利公約審查基準之作法，將輕易完成置於上位，建議原則置於中位，所建立之實例則列為下位；在輔助性判斷因素方面：因進步性為判斷發明可否專利的最後一要件，且發明之本質乃基於技術而來，其評估應著重於技術本身，故可以判決確立輔助性判斷因素僅在依技術觀點判斷進步性之有無有所懷疑或爭議難決時，始得作為判斷之因素。

The non-obviousness is a condition of patentability. The requirement of the non-obviousness means that an invention shall not be granted if one who has ordinary skills in the pertinent art can easily accomplish it and if it utilizes technology or knowledge known prior to applying for patent. However, how to assess the non-obviousness, it refers to the principles and factors defined by the Supreme Court of United States of America in a case of Graham v. Deere in 1966.The European Patent Office adopts the “problem-solution approach” to assess the non-obviousness. The thesis attempts to inquire into their respective advantages, the principles, the factors, and comparison on their differences. Then, we review the situation of Taiwan and examine the principles and the factors of the advanced countries for the reflection on Taiwan's non-obviousness. In the paper, the non-obviousness requirement of determination in Taiwan is quite similar to European and American law, no matter the factors or the principles. On the perspective of the factors, it may be necessary to add “the differences between the claims and the prior art” in order to reform the patent practice to avoid the comparison of differences. On the factor of level of ordinary skill in the art, we should consider to approach the concept of “teamwork” according to the European Patent Convention. To resolve the meaning of “obvious” perspective, it refers to the standard of the European Patent Convention examination that place “obvious” factor as the first consideration and “ suggestion test ” as the second, thus the “indicators” as the last. On the perspective of “secondary considerations”, they are useful in case of doubt about the non-obviousness.