由美國KSR案探討發明專利之進步性判斷

A Study on the Determination of Non-Obviousness Requirement in Light of the U.S. KSR v. Teleflex Decision

「欠缺進步性」為我國專利訴訟中侵權人或舉發人經常提出之抗辯，但一項發明是否具有進步性卻是專利要件中最難以判斷者。由於進步性之判斷係裁判者於發明完成後，回溯至發明當時，以所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者之角度，認定發明是否能被輕易完成，過程中的假定與抽象概念的運用極易造成認定上的歧異與難以預測。在美國，早於西元（下同）1850年之Hotchkiss v. Greenwood案，聯邦最高法院即發展出相當於我國進步性之專利要件－非顯而易見性，在美國司法實務對顯而易見性之判斷已提出各種判斷標準之多年後，最高法院於2007年所審理之非顯而易見性爭議案件，KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc案（下稱KSR案），備受關注。於KSR案，聯邦最高法院表示對於非顯而易見性之判斷應採取廣泛及彈性 之方式為之，且不存在具決定性之判斷標準，即使教示、建議或動機原則（下稱 TSM）為一種有用的判斷標準，但於適用上亦不應為嚴格、僵化的運用，各種於判斷上有關之客觀證據均應被考量，且闡明於一定條件下，顯可嘗試原則仍可作為非顯而易見性的其中一種判斷標準。
在聯邦最高法院做成KSR案後，美國專利商標局（下稱USPTO）於同年10 月即發布了「以 KSR之觀點決定專利法第103條非顯而易見性之審查指南」，其中提供審查人員七項特別地強調「可預測性」與「合理的成功預期」之核駁理由，於各項理由中，USPTO都表示可能有另以廣泛探究事實的Graham判斷標準檢視發明之非顯而易見性的之必要，且要求審查人員不能僅以TSM作為單一之核駁理由。而USPTO於2010年發布之「新版非顯而易見性審查指南：KSR案後之顯而易見性判斷發展」，亦再次闡述KSR案中「對於非顯而易見性之判斷必須考量所有有關之客觀證據」的要求。至於在司法實務層面，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院於KSR案後多有以聯邦最高法院所肯認之顯可嘗試原則作為判斷標準，且巡迴上訴法院更表示即使於相對為不可預測之生技領域，亦有其適用。若以實際之數據觀之，KSR案無論於行政或司法實務確實都造成令裁判者更傾向認定發明為不具非顯而易見性，KSR案於美國法非顯而易見性判斷上之影響，深遠且廣大。
回歸至我國，我國新版之專利審查基準已於2017年7月1日生效，新版之專利審查基準與舊版之重要差異，以及深受美國法影響之我國，新版之專利審查基準與KSR案後之美國法異同，均有值得探討之處。而於我國司法實務，智慧財產法院在進步性之判斷上較為著重何種因素、在做成結論之認定過程中有何種缺失、又此等現象將對結論造成何種影響，更為與我國發明專利之進步性認定直接相關者，本文期望藉此觀察得以具體提供主管機關關於我國發明專利進步性判斷標準修正之方向，與我國實務參與者於專利案件攻防時應加強之面向。

Lacking of non-obviousness is one of the defenses the infringer or petitioner most
raises in patent litigations of Taiwan. However, whether an invention is non-obvious is the most difficult part to be determined in examining the patent requirement. Because the determination of non-obviousness is made at the time the invention has been completed and the judge shall go back to the time the invention was making in the view of person who having ordinary skill for the determination of non-obviousness, the hypothesis and abstractive concept exercised in this process result in the diversity and unpredictability of outcome. In 1850 in Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, the U.S. Supreme Court established the non-obviousness requirement. After years, the U.S. judicial practice has brought out many principles for the determination of non-obviousness and the case related to non-obviousness issue that the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex Inc.（hereinafter referred to as “KSR”）, was given much attention. In KSR, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated that precedents have set forth an expansive and flexible approach to determine the question of non-obviousness and no an approach alone can be decisive. Notwithstanding teaching, suggestion, or motivation test（hereinafter referred to as “TSM”）captures a helpful insight, but the application need not become rigid and mandatory formulas. The Court states that all of the relevant objective evidences shall be considered and in certain instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that patent for it was obvious.
After the KSR decision, the United States Patent and Trademark Office（hereinafter referred to as “USPTO”）issued examination guidelines for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of the Supreme Court decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. in October 2007, providing examiners seven rationales to support the rejections. Those rationales emphasized on predictability and reasonable expectation of success and expressed the necessity of whatever additional findings based on the Graham factual inquiries. The conclusion that an invention is non-obvious simply because a rejection based on TSM cannot be made. In the examination guidelines update: developments in the obviousness inquiry after KSR v. Teleflex that USPTO issued in 2010 reiterated the request of KSR that the determination shall be made after weighing any properly presented objective evidence of non-obviousness. As to the dimension of judicial practice, in many cases the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit（hereinafter referred to as “CAFC”）held the claimed patents were obvious by the obvious-to-try test which was recognized by the Supreme Court.
Moreover, the CAFC also held that the obvious-to-try test is applicable even in the field relatively unpredictable. Analyzing KSR by data comprised of pre- and post-KSR Federal Circuit decisions on obviousness, the USPTO and CAFC have indeed found patents and applications to be obvious at a higher rate than they did prior to KSR. Undoubtedly, KSR have a far-reaching impact on the determination of non-obviousness.
Returning back to Taiwan, the new edition of patent examination guideline has been effective at July 1, 2017. The important differences between the new edition of patent examination guideline and the old one, and the differences between the new edition of patent examination guideline and the U.S. law after KSR are worthy to be researched given that the change of Taiwan’s patent law usually refer to the development of U.S. experiences. As to the judicial practice in Taiwan, which factor is the most critical to Intellectual Property Court determines the non-obviousness, and what kind of deficiency is produced during the process Intellectual Property Court makes the conclusion are also directly related to the determination of non-obviousness in Taiwan. By the virtue of above studying, this article provides specific recommendations to the administration for revising the patent examination guideline and to the participants of patent practice for the dimension they should focus on in patent cases.