美國專利法102(e)與台灣專利法第23條於進步性判斷之不同點
專利工程師 劉哲郎
2012-09-03
根據台灣專利法第23條規定，「申請專利之發明，與申請在先而在其申請後始公開或公告之發明或新型專利申請案所附說明書或圖式載明之內容相同者，不得取得發明專利。但其申請人與申請在先之發明或新型專利申請案之申請人相同者，不在此限。」另外，美國專利法102(e)規定，「A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b) [35 USC 122(b)], by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) [35 USC 351(a)] shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.」
依前段所述，台灣及美國專利法皆有類似之規定。具體而言，這是一般在比"申請日"的新穎性規定，換言之，即便先申請案之公開或公告日晚於後申請案之申請日，若先申請案之說明書或圖式與後申請案相同，則後申請案將會因為先申請案擬制為後申請案之先前技術，而喪失新穎性。
其中，在台灣專利法中並未規定此一擬制喪失新穎性可適用於進步性之判斷。根據台灣專利法第22條第4項之進步性規定：「申請專利之發明為該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者依申請前之先前技術所能輕易完成者，不得取得發明專利。」此處所謂之先前技術，其判斷方式之一係該先前技術是否公開或公告而可使不特定人得以閱覽或知悉。因此，若是在先申請案未公開之情況下，具有通常知識者自然無法依該未公開之先申請案以完成該發明。
相反地，美國專利法103(a)有關進步性之規定，「(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 」簡言之，美國專利法第103(a)關於進步性的核駁理由，已包含擬制喪失新穎性102(e)之部分！
綜上所述，美國專利法與台灣專利法雖皆有類似擬制喪失新穎性之法律規定，然而，針對適用擬致喪失新穎性之前案，僅有美國可進一步適用於進步性之判斷。
參考資料
專利法(民國100年12月21日修正，※本法規部分或全部條文尚未生效) ，智慧財產法院，全國法規資料庫
http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawContent.aspx?PCODE=J0070007
美國專利法102(e)、103(a)
