下载掌阅APP，畅读海量书库
立即打开
总体而言，本研究以计算机实施的发明之可专利性为主题，结合美国、欧洲国家、日本和我国专利制度中的相关规定和实践做法进行比较研究，使用了丰富的案例资料，既包括本领域内各国或地区经典判例，也包括最新的案例素材，并在此基础上进行原创性分析，形成以下创新点：
首先，研究对象为计算机实施的发明，不仅覆盖国内外专利法上长期以来存在争议的软件和商业方法发明，也将目前处于信息技术领域前沿的人工智能算法及其相关发明纳入其中，因为人工智能算法只有转化为程序代码，并在计算机上执行才能获得特定的功能，这是专利法对计算机实施的发明予以保护的根本原因。
其次，第二章关于计算机实施的发明之专利客体适格性，基于对美欧日中四个国家和地区专利适格性理论，以及计算机实施的发明专利的行政审查和司法保护现状分析，梳理各国（地区）专利制度中的共识与分歧，特别提出了核心分歧在于判定计算机实施的发明是否属于可以获得专利保护的客体需要考虑其技术贡献与否。同时，通过研究发现，美国和日本专利审查实践尤为强调说明书充分公开对于专利适格性判断的重要影响。
再次，运用从一般到特殊的研究方法，分析计算机实施的发明之新颖性与创造性。与其他发明相比，在评价计算机实施的发明专利新颖性和创造性过程中，呈现逐渐扩大现有技术范围，提高本领域技术人员一般技术水平和普通创造能力的趋势，尤其针对利用人工智能作为辅助研发工具的发明，这种趋势更加明显。然而，由于专利法调整的是人与人之间的无形财产关系，那么上述趋势不应超出本领域技术人员可以预见的程度，更不能将本领域技术人员直接定义为人工智能系统（机器），是否可以将之认定为配备人工智能系统的技术人员需要考虑所属技术领域的常规做法和人工智能普及程度。此外，本书第一章阐述了人工智能时代计算机实施的发明所具有的特点，以此为根据，还着重分析了影响此类发明创造性的特殊因素。考虑到计算机实施的发明很有可能构成组合发明，比较研究各国和地区专利制度可知，组合发明是否具有创造性主要取决于它是否产生了不可预期的技术效果。算法和功能性数据的披露，以及软件和人工智能产业政策也关系着相关发明的创造性判定结论。
最后，提出对于计算机实施的发明之可专利性进行体系化解读的观点，也就是将客体要件与专利实质要件作为一个整体考察，按客体适格性→实用性→新颖性→创造性的逻辑顺序逐层过滤没有专利保护必要性和正当性的发明，各个要件既相互联系，也存在着功能上的明确界限。美国最新司法实践经验表明，不宜为专利适格性审查强加过多的内容或抬高门槛，甚至取代专利实质审查。判断计算机实施的发明是否属于可专利的客体，应以具体的技术实施手段为考察重点，发明解决的技术问题和实现的技术效果完全可以纳入创造性评价范畴。发明可专利性的体系解释不仅符合专利法的历史演进以及法学方法论，也有助于强化计算机实施的发明可专利性判定的可预期性。本书以可专利性的体系化解读为原则，就我国目前适用的专利适格性、新颖性和创造性判断方法和标准提出了若干完善建议。
[1] Bradford L.Smith and Susan O.Mann,“Innovation and Intellectual Property Protection in Software Industry:An Emerging Role for Patents?”, University of Chicago Law Review ,Vol.71,2004,pp.243-247.
[2] Arne Kolb,“Protection of Computer Software”in Lilian Edwards and Charlotte Waelde, Law and the Internet ,Oxford:Hart Publishing,2009,pp.336-337.
[3] WIPO, Model Provisions on the Protection of Computer Software ,Geneva 1978.
[4] Charlotte Waelde et al., Contemporary Intellectual Property : Law and Policy ,3rd edn,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2014,p.515.
[5] Timothy R.Holbrook,“Method Patent Exceptionalism”, lowa L . Rev .,Vol.102,2017,p.1028.
[6] William Meisel, The Software Society : Cultural and Economic Impact ,Trafford Publishing,2013.
[7] Jeffrey A.Lefstin,Peter S.Menell,and David O.Taylor,“Final Report of the Berkeley Center for Law&Technology Section 101 Workshop:Addressing Patent Eligibility Challenges”, Berkeley Tech . L . J .,Vol.33,2018,pp.515-606.
[8] USPTO, Patent Eligibility Subject Matter : Report on Views and Recommendations from the Public ,25 July 2017,https://www.ipintelligencereport.com/2017/07/26/uspto-reporton-patent-eligible-subject-matter/,accessed November 4,2020.
[9] David O.Taylor,“Amending Patent Eligibility”, U . C . Davis L . Rev .,Vol.50,2017,pp.2149-2214.
[10] Keith Beresford, Patenting Software under the European Patent Convention ,London:Sweet & Maxwell,2000,p.25.
[11] Kevin Madigan & Adam Mossoff,“Turning Gold into Lead.How Patent Eligibility Doctrine Is Undermining U.S.Leadership in Innovation”, Geo . Mason L . Rev .,Vol.24,2017,pp.939-941.
[12] Susan J.Marsnik and Robert E.Thomas,“Drawing a Line in the Patent Subject-Matter Sands:Does Europe Provide a Solution to the Software and Business Method Patent Problem”, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review ,Vol.34,2011,pp.227-328.
[13] Reinier Bakels & P.Bernt Hugenholtz,“The Patentability of Computer Programs:Discussion of European-Level Legislation in the Field of Patents for Software”, European Par liament , Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market Working Paper ,2002,p.26.
[14] Michael R.Woodward,“Amending Alice: Eliminating the Undue Burden of Significantly More”, Alb . L . Rev .,Vol.81,2017,pp.329-[iv].
[15] Hung H.Bui,“A Common Sense Approach to Implement the Supreme Court's Alice Two-Step Framework to Provide Certainty and Predictability”, Journal of the Patent and Trade mark Office Society ,Vol.100,2018,pp.165-270.
[16] Raymond A.Mercado,“Resolving Patent Eligibility and Indefiniteness in Proper Context:Applying Alice and Aristocrat”, Va JL & Tech ,Vol.20,2016,pp.240-337.
[17] Ilija Ilijovski,“Perfecting U.S.Patentable Subject Matter-Merging the European Approach and the American Principles”, Chi - Kent J Intell Prop ,Vol.19,2019,pp.182-212.
[18] Shane D.Anderson,“Software,Abstractness,and Soft Physicality Requirements”, Harvard J . L . & Tech .,Vol.29,2016,pp.567-594.
[19] John Swinson,“Copyright or Patent or Both: An Algorithmic Approach to Computer Software Protection”, Harvard J . L . & Tech .,Vol.5,1991,pp.145-214.
[20] Anton Huges, The Patentability of Software : Software as Mathematics ,Oxford:Routledge,2017,p.33.
[21] Sabine Kruspig and Claudia Schwarz, Legal Protection for Computer - Implemented In ventions : A Practical Guide to Software - Related Patents ,The Netherlands:Wolters Kluwer Law International BV,2017,location 580.
[22] Sangik Bae,“Overcoming Abstract Idea Exception of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility under 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law ,Vol.18,2019,pp.[i]-400.
[23] Liza Vertinsky and Todd M.Rice,“Thinking About Thinking Machines:Implications of Machine Inventors for Patent Law”, B . U . J . Sci . & TEC . L .,Vol.8,2002,pp.574-613.
[24] Michael Abramowicz and John F.Duffy,“The Inducement Standard of Patentability”, Yale L . J .,Vol.120,2011,pp.1590-1680.
[25] Brenda M.Simon,“The Implications of Technological Advancement for Obviousness”, Mich . Telecomm . & Tech . L . Rev .,Vol.19,2013,pp.101-147.
[26] Matthew John Duane,“Lending a Hand:The Need for Public Participation in Patent Examination and Beyond”, Chi .- Kent J . Intell . Prop .,Vol.7,2008,note 125.
[27] Jonathan J.Darrow,“The Neglected Dimension of Patent”, Harvard Journal of Law& Technology ,Vol.23,2009,pp.239-247.
[28] Ryan B Abbott,“Patenting the Output of Autonomously Inventive Machines”, Land slide ,Vol.10,2017,p.16.
[29] Dan L.Burk & Mark A.Lemley,“Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?”, Berkeley Tech . L . J .,Vol.17,2002,p.1193.
[30] Christian Koboldt,“Much Pain for Little Gain:A Critical View of Software Patents”, The Journal of Information , Law and Technology ,Vol.8,2003,p.1.
[31] Luca Egitto,“Certifying Uncertainty:Assessing the Proposed Directive on the Patentability of Computer Implemented Inventions”, Jilt ,Vol.9,2004,p.7.