文/北京集佳知識產(chǎn)權(quán)代理有限公司 許冠男
作為《2022年全球創(chuàng)新指數(shù)》寄予希望的創(chuàng)新浪潮之一【1】，構(gòu)建于超級計算、人工智能和自動化基礎(chǔ)之上的數(shù)字時代創(chuàng)新浪潮在專利保護領(lǐng)域的熱度一直不減。然而，該領(lǐng)域的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造的可專利性，即計算機實施的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造是否屬于專利保護的主題，在不同國家的法律體系下存在一定審查差異性。
在代理實務(wù)中，代理人需在專利咨詢和準(zhǔn)備階段，注意這種差異性，考慮是否存在保護客體問題。由于各國審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和尺度各不相同，本文著重討論在澳大利亞專利法體系下涉及計算機實施的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造的可專利性問題。
一、相關(guān)法律規(guī)定
《澳大利亞專利法1990》（Patents Act 1990 (Cth)【2】）中第十八條對可專利性規(guī)定如下：
Under section 18 (1) of an invention is patentable (standard patent【3】) if what it is claimed【4】:
(a) is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies【5】;
(b) when compared with the prior art base【6】: (i) is novel; and (ii) involves an inventive step; and
(c) is useful; and
(d) was not secretly used in the patent area.【7】
《澳大利亞專利1990》第十八條第一款
如滿足以下要求，一項標(biāo)準(zhǔn)專利申請具有可專利性:
(a)是《壟斷法》第6條所指的制造方式；
(b)與在該請求優(yōu)先權(quán)日之前存在的現(xiàn)有技術(shù)基礎(chǔ)相比：(i)新穎；以及 (ii)涉及創(chuàng)造性步驟;
(c)實用性;以及
(d)在該權(quán)利要求的優(yōu)先權(quán)日前未被秘密使用的。
雖然澳大利亞專利法中并沒有明確規(guī)定將“計算機實施的專利”排除在可授予專利權(quán)的主題之外，但是在澳大利亞專利局的《實踐與程序的專利指南》（下文簡稱“指南”）中對于“計算機實施的專利”的審查做出了以下解釋和指導(dǎo)【8】：
需要注意的是，所要求保護的方法只能在計算環(huán)境中實施，并不意味著它就屬于一種制造方式。例如，方案不能僅僅因為方案的應(yīng)用和效用僅限于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)而成為一種制造方式。同樣，將權(quán)利要求限制在其他技術(shù)環(huán)境也可能不會改變所要求的是方案或抽象概念的事實。例如，一種從油井中提取石油的方法A，其特征是計算機實施的算法可以根據(jù)客戶需求分配泵送資源，即使在概念上與技術(shù)活動相關(guān)聯(lián)，但實際上其也是一種方案。相反，一種從油井中提取石油的方法B，其特征是一種計算機實施的算法，該算法使用密度、流量等歷史值來調(diào)整泵的運行以使其更有效地運行，這樣的計算機實施的算法B在本質(zhì)上可能是一種提取石油的方法而不是一種概念或方案【9】。
通常，計算機實施的發(fā)明由功能特征定義，即通過計算機設(shè)備執(zhí)行的操作。使用功能術(shù)語限定一項發(fā)明并不意味著要求保護的發(fā)明不是一種制造方式。這是因為發(fā)明需要作為實質(zhì)問題進行評估，權(quán)利要求的形式不會影響這種評估。如果從功能上定義發(fā)明的權(quán)利要求中的功能可以產(chǎn)生技術(shù)效果，則其可能是一種“制造方式”【10】。
當(dāng)實質(zhì)上的發(fā)明在于計算機以外的技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的改進（例如技術(shù)問題的技術(shù)解決方案）或計算機技術(shù)的改進或進步時，這樣的改進通常視為符合專利條件，但須符合其他要求。例如，一項針對使用非中文鍵盤以中文字符組合文本的計算機處理設(shè)備的權(quán)利要求（CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd【11】）以及通過計算機生成改進的曲線圖像（International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents【12】) 已被認(rèn)定為可授予專利【13】。
該指南特別指出，使用標(biāo)準(zhǔn)或公知常識的計算設(shè)備執(zhí)行的業(yè)務(wù)交互和交易的各個方面很可能不屬于“制造方式”，并提供以下示例以供參考：
1.A method of performing financial transactions, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, location information of a user from a user device;
determining, by the processor, a location of the user based on the location information;
determining, by the processor, whether one or more sellers are within a predetermined distance of the location of the user; and
communicating payment information of a selected seller from the one or more sellers to the user device if the selected seller is within the predetermined distance of the location of the user【14】.
可見，該示例涉及使用移動電話技術(shù)進行客戶和商家之間的共享交易信息的方法。由于在電子設(shè)備上進行電子金融交易，以及在可以確定用戶位置的設(shè)備上進行這些交易是公知常識。所述 “處理器”和“用戶設(shè)備”只是執(zhí)行它們通常獨立的功能，沒有相關(guān)技術(shù)的改進操作。權(quán)利要求本質(zhì)上是判斷賣家是否在用戶的預(yù)定距離內(nèi)，如果賣家在用戶的一定距離內(nèi)，則隨后將支付信息傳達(dá)給用戶。因此，權(quán)利要求的本質(zhì)是針對用于確定何時共享信息的純計算機實施的規(guī)則或方案。但是，如果從整個說明書中確定的發(fā)明實質(zhì)與確定位置的方式有關(guān)，而且執(zhí)行該方法的技術(shù)是有所改進的，則針對該主題的權(quán)利要求很可能是可專利的。由于上述示例權(quán)利要求并不包括這種改進，因此其不屬于可專利的主題的可能性更大【15】。
總之，“such inventions are only patentable if what is claimed “as a matter of substance” meets the requirements for a manner of manufacture and in particular is not a mere scheme, abstract idea or mere information【16】”，即這類發(fā)明創(chuàng)造需要滿足“制造方式”的要求并且不僅僅涉及一個方案、抽象的概念或者信息。需要注意的是，由于澳大利亞屬于普通法（Common Law）體系，因此盡管在專利法1990中沒有對于“制造方式”進行進一步明確地限定，但可以根據(jù)判例法（Case Law）來進一步解讀， 其也是上述指南中的解釋和指導(dǎo)的依據(jù)。下面的章節(jié)將進一步進行介紹。
二、相關(guān)判例
由上述分析可知，對于“計算機實施的專利”可專利性的判斷關(guān)鍵在于對于“制造方式”的定義和理解。在實踐中，對于“計算機實施的專利” 是否符合“制造方式”的要求一般根據(jù)判例來確定。下列判例對于理解澳大利亞專利法關(guān)于“計算機實施的專利”的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和尺度較為重要。
1.Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd【17】
The Court (Kenny Bennett and Nicholas JJ) concluded that “computer-implemented inventions” must be assessed to ascertain if it is substantially a scheme or plan or if it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology. A business method or mere scheme is not patentable. It does not mean a scheme or business method is excluded from a patentable subject matter. Yet the claimed invention must be more than an abstract idea. The claimed invention needs to have some creations of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to it, rather than a mere tool. If the invention is a computerised business method, computerisation must lie in the invention. It is not patentable if an invention simply uses well-known and understood functions to implement a business method into the computer. Put another way, the invention must solve a technical problem rather than merely implement by the generic computer.【18】
The related claim 1 is as follows:
A method of gathering evidence relevant to an assessment of an individual's competency relative to a recognised qualification standard, including the steps of:
a computer retrieving via the Internet from a remotely-located server a plurality of assessable criteria associated with the recognised qualification standard…;
the computer processing the plurality of assessable criteria to generate automatically a corresponding plurality of questions relating to the competency of an individual to satisfy each of the elements of competency and performance criteria associated with the recognised qualification standard;…【19】
在該案中，法官(Kenny Bennett and Nicholas JJ) 認(rèn)為對于涉及“計算機實施的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造”應(yīng)該確定其本質(zhì)是一種方案或策略還是可以在廣義上定義為一種對于計算機技術(shù)的改進。商業(yè)方法和方案是不具有可專利性的。這并不意味著可專利的主題完全排除商業(yè)方法和方案，但要求專利保護的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造必須不僅僅是一種抽象概念。要求專利保護的發(fā)明需要有一些“人為的創(chuàng)造（artificial state of affairs）”，而對于該“創(chuàng)造”的部分，計算機是不可或缺的，而不僅僅作為一種工具。如果要求專利保護的發(fā)明是一種計算機化的商業(yè)方法，計算機化必須是發(fā)明點，而不僅僅是使用計算機的公知、常用功能來實現(xiàn)這個商業(yè)方法。即要求專利保護的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造必須解決技術(shù)問題而不是只是通過計算機來實現(xiàn)。
2.Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents【20】
The Court (Perram J) found in favour of the commissioner that the claimed “methods and systems for providing and receiving information for risk management in the field” are to solve a problem in the field of business operations (such as management of work, health and safety information) which implemented with generic computer function, that is, not a patentable invention. His Honour also observed that this Court had upheld the patentability of computer-implemented inventions only twice. One case is the curve drawing algorithm in International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents.【21】Another uses an English keyboard to generate Chinese characters in CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd.【22】In both cases, the inventions claimed could broadly be described as an advancement or improvement in computer technology. That is, if the claimed invention is "not directed to any technological problem and the method of implementation does not involve any improvement in computer technology or any unusual or unconventional technical method or effect", the invention was not patentable subject matter【23】.
The related claim 1 is as follows:
A method of providing information for risk management to a user of a personal computing device performing a job in the field, said method comprising:
identifying the user;
selecting a job to be performed by the identified user;
downloading information related to the selected job to the portable device…;
displaying the downloaded information for selection of one or more indicia in the information…;
receiving input to the portable device…; and uploading the input, whereby a record of the input is able to be used in relation to the selected job【24】.
在該案中，法官認(rèn)為專利申請解決的是商業(yè)運營領(lǐng)域的問題，例如工作、健康以及安全信息管理，其使用通用計算機功能來實施，并不屬于可專利的發(fā)明。如果要求保護的發(fā)明“不針對任何技術(shù)問題并且實施方法不涉及計算機技術(shù)的任何改進或任何不尋常或非常規(guī)的技術(shù)方法或效果”，則該發(fā)明不是可授予專利的主題。
值得注意的是，在該判決書中法官提到對于眾多此類案件的審理中，全院僅有兩次維持了發(fā)明申請的可專利性（即判決書中提及的兩個案例，CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd【25】和 International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents【26】），而所述的兩個案例所要求保護的發(fā)明都屬于廣義上的對于計算機技術(shù)的提升或改進。這也從另一方面說明，澳大利亞對于涉及計算機實施的專利申請的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相對嚴(yán)格，尤其是對于商業(yè)方案與計算機的結(jié)合，例如涉及管理、稅務(wù)、娛樂軟件系統(tǒng)等。
3.Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents【27】
a.The first joint judgment by Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Keane JJ【28】
Their Honours approved that a computer and computer related technology may be patentable if it is of some concrete, tangible, physical, or observable effect, which can distinguish from "an abstract, intangible situation" or " mere a scheme, an abstract idea, or intellectual information. An artificial state of affairs may also be determined if the claimed invention can broadly be described as an "improvement in computer technology", where the computer is integral to the invention instead of a mere tool for implementation【29】.
b.The second joint judgment by Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ【30】
Their Honours concluded that a better way of testing whether there is a manner of manufacture within s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies, would be to determine: if it is an abstract idea which is manipulated on a computer; or an abstract idea which is implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result. The artificial state of affairs and useful result may be a physical change in something or an improvement in computer technology. It is sufficient that the artificial state of affairs and useful result are created by "the way in which the method is carried out in the computer". Their Honours then reconfirmed that the invention in CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd【31】is an example of an idea implemented on a computer to produce an artificial state of affairs and a useful result【32】. It should be noted that both judgments affirmed that the correctness of the precedents such as CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd【33】, Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents【34】, Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd【35】, Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd【36】and Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd【37】.They both held that foreign laws (e.g., the United States) are irrelevant to the question of manner of manufacture in Australia【38】.
The related claim 1 is as follows:
A gaming machine comprising:
a display; a credit input mechanism operable to establish credits on the gaming machine…; meters …;a random number generator; a game play mechanism …; and
a game controller comprising a processor and memory storing (i) game program code, and (ii) symbol data defining reels…,the game controller executing the game program code …:
select a plurality of symbols from a first set of reels defined by the symbol data using the random number generator;
control the display to display the selected ….;
monitor play of the base game and trigger a feature game comprising free games in response to a trigger event occurring in play of the base game,
conduct the free games on the display …, and
when the free games end, make an award of credits to the win meter or the credit meter based on a total of prize values assigned to collected configurable symbols 【39】.
本案涉及專利權(quán)人Aristocrat的四項電子游戲機（EGM）革新專利（源于一個母案），在審查階段，審查員認(rèn)為上述權(quán)利要求的本質(zhì)是在一基礎(chǔ)游戲中選擇一些符號顯示構(gòu)成功能游戲。其中僅僅使用計算機、隨機數(shù)生成器、貨幣輸入機制、屏幕和數(shù)據(jù)庫等常規(guī)技術(shù)來實現(xiàn)這一方案，并不屬于對計算機技術(shù)的改進，以第18條1A款為由撤銷了所述專利。專利權(quán)人一審上訴成功，一審法官認(rèn)為由于該電子游戲機（EGM）是物理元件和計算機系統(tǒng)的結(jié)合，因此并不僅僅是一種方案，屬于可專利主題。然而，當(dāng)Commissioner of Patents將案件上訴到全院（Full Court）后，多數(shù)法官認(rèn)為雖然涉案專利是計算機實施的，但其本質(zhì)上并不是對計算機技術(shù)的改進或者人為創(chuàng)造，因此判定其并不是可專利的主題。最終Aristocrat將案件上訴的高院（High Court）【40】。
高院法官們一致認(rèn)為，《專利法》第 18 條規(guī)定了存在發(fā)明的門檻要求，并且根據(jù)第 18條 1（a）款評估制造方式是否存在的唯一問題是：是否存在《壟斷法》第 6 條定義下的制造方式。但6位法官對上訴人的發(fā)明的可專利性存在分歧。根據(jù)整個說明書和公知常識，三位法官（Kiefel CJ, Gageler and Keane JJ）駁回上訴，他們參考并解釋了涉及計算機實施的發(fā)明可專利性的先例之中的判決理由和附加說明，將本發(fā)明描述為對新系統(tǒng)或游戲方法的權(quán)利要求。它與常識的唯一區(qū)別是功能游戲的構(gòu)思，該這種構(gòu)思不屬于可專利主題【41】。
其余三位法官（Gordon, Edelman and Steward JJ）持相反意見，他們認(rèn)為可以根據(jù)一種“更好的方法”來判斷這類申請的可專利性，即確定要求保護的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造是一種由計算機操縱的抽象概念，還是一種由計算機實施的抽象概念，但能夠產(chǎn)生人為的創(chuàng)造和有用的結(jié)果（an artificial state of affairs and a useful result）。根據(jù)上述理由，法官們將本發(fā)明描述為一個 EGM，包含一個相互依存的玩家界面和一個游戲控制器，其中包括功能游戲和可配置的符號，涉及人為的創(chuàng)造和有用結(jié)果。由于高等法院的意見分歧相等，根據(jù)相關(guān)法規(guī)要求（s 23(2)(a) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)【42】）維持上訴所針對的決定，因此，上訴方Aristocrat的上訴被駁回，即維持了全院的判決【43】。
由于本案涉及計算機實施發(fā)明的可專利性問題，從一審以來就備受業(yè)界相關(guān)人士關(guān)注。高院6位法官以3:3做出的兩個不同結(jié)論的判決結(jié)果給這類申請在澳大利亞的獲權(quán)和維權(quán)之路增添了很大的不確定性。例如，一些業(yè)界人士認(rèn)為該判例將對這類申請的審查以及訴訟造成一定影響，任何領(lǐng)域涉及計算機硬件或軟件的專利或易受到“制造方式”的攻擊，專利權(quán)利人應(yīng)該研究已授權(quán)的專利是否存在這樣的缺陷并考慮應(yīng)對策略【44】。從專利申請的角度來說，申請人及其代理人需要知道在這個領(lǐng)域什么是可專利的，什么是不可專利的【45】。然而，兩個結(jié)論不同的判決理由并沒有使這類申請的審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)變得清晰，相反變得不太明朗，增加了審查員的主觀認(rèn)知和判斷對一項專利申請的“命運”的影響。
三、總結(jié)
綜上所述，澳大利亞對于“計算機實施的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造”審查的大致標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為所保護的發(fā)明創(chuàng)造需要廣義上具有計算機技術(shù)上的改進而并不僅僅利用計算機的通用功能或結(jié)構(gòu)。特別地，對于商業(yè)方法與計算機的結(jié)合，從判例來看，審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)相對嚴(yán)格。其要求專利保護的發(fā)明需要有一些“人為的創(chuàng)造”，對于該“創(chuàng)造”計算機是不可或缺的，而不僅僅作為一種工具，并且必須解決技術(shù)問題而不是只是通過計算機來實現(xiàn)。
然而，根據(jù)上述判例可知，對于如何判斷專利申請是否實質(zhì)涉及計算機技術(shù)層面上改進，以及何種程度的改進可以被認(rèn)為是人為的、有用的創(chuàng)造，都存在不確定性。在實操中，代理人可持續(xù)關(guān)注這類判例的動態(tài)，通過學(xué)習(xí)判例、分析判例理由來理解相關(guān)法律條例以及審查標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和尺度，以期在遇到此類申請進入澳大利亞可以進行預(yù)判并考慮應(yīng)對策略。
注釋：
【1】《2022年全球創(chuàng)新指數(shù)》https://www.wipo.int/global_innovation_index/en/.
【2】Patents Act 1990 (Cth).
【3】See definition of ‘standard patent in Schedule 1 of Patents Act 1990 (Cth).
【4】Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 18 (1).
【5】Statute of Monopolies 1623 (IMP) s6; Patents Act 1990 (Cth) s 18(1)(a).
【6】See definition of‘prior art base’in Schedule 1 of Patents Act 1990 (Cth).
【7】See definition of‘patent area’in Schedule 1 of Patents Act 1990 (Cth).
【8】IP Australia, Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure (13 December 2021) s 2.9.2.7 < https://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/2.9.2.7-computer-implemented-inventions-schemes-and-business-methods>.
【9】同上
【10】同上
【11】CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd (1994) 51 FCR 260.
【12】International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents (1991) 33 FCR 218.
【13】IP Australia, Patent Manual of Practice and Procedure (13 December 2021) s 2.9.2.7 < https://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/2.9.2.7-computer-implemented-inventions-schemes-and-business-methods>.
【14】同上
【15】同上
【16】同上
【17】Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd (2015) 238 FCR 27.
【18】同上
【19】同上
【20】Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2021] FCAFC 223.
【21】如上International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents.
【22】如上CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd.
【23】如上Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [9].
【24】同上
【25】如上CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd.
【26】如上International Business Machines Corporation v Commissioner of Patents.
【27】Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29.
【28】同上
【29】同上.
【30】同上
【31】如上CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd.
【32】如上Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents; Tom Cordiner et al,‘Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents’(Web page, October 2022) < https://commbarmatters.com.au/2022/10/04/aristocrat-technologies-australia-pty-ltd-v-commissioner-of-patents/>.
【33】如上CCOM Pty Ltd v Jiejing Pty Ltd.
【34】Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents (2014) 227 FCR 378.
【35】Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd (2019) 372 ALR 646.
【36】Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd (2020) 277 FCR 767.
【37】如上Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd.
【38】如上 n(32).
【39】同上
【40】如上n(32); .
【41】同上
【42】Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).
【43】如上 n(40).
【44】Kent Teague and Rose Jenkins, ‘Legislation needed on patentability of computer-implemented inventions, after High Court divided in rare 3:3 judgment’ (Web page, August 2022) ；Tom n(32).
【45】同上