2016年 01月 27日
米国 CBM2016-00167(ATM関連の特許に対するビジネス特許レビュー) |
◆ビジネス特許レビュー(CBM)の申立基準を満たさないと判断された事件(審判部 PTAB)。
【§101、ソフトウェア関連発明、Alice判決、特許適格性、patent eligibility、 CBM review、どちらかと言えば無効 ”more likely than not”】
(Alice判決引用部分)
[The Supreme Court] has set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent eligible applications of those concepts. First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “what else is there in the claims before us?” To answer that question, we consider the elements of each claim both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. We have described step two of this analysis as as earch for an inventive concept—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the ineligible concept itself.Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (internal citations, brackets, and quotation marks omitted).
(申立基準を満たしているか)
As Patent Owner points out, Petitioner has oversimplified the challenged claims. Prelim. Resp. 31. The challenged claims are not directed simply to the idea of providing money to an account holder or using trial and-error until success is achieved. Rather, the claims are directed to particular methods of providing money to an account holder using an ATM via a POS transaction after an ATM transaction has failed. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“Applications of such concepts to a new and useful end . . .remain eligible for patent protection.”) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Further, Petitioner’s analysis omits any consideration of the elements of the claims as ordered combinations to determine whether the additional elements transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application. It was Petitioner’s burden to do so.
Petitioner has not shown that the claims are more likely than not patent-ineligible. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (“an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept”).
by manabu16779
| 2016-01-27 19:21
| 外国特許
|
Comments(0)