第三章 美國電腦實施商業方法之專利適格性
第二節 專利適格性三部曲（ TRILOGY ）
第一項 Gottschalk v. Benson88
本件係美國聯邦最高法院於 1972 年首次處理有關「軟體專利」之爭議案件。
86 Patrick E. King et al., The Confluence of European Activism and American Minimalism: Patentable Subject Matter after Bilski, 27 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 247, 268-283 (2010).
87 Id. at 269-271.
88 Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972).
89 Claim 8: The method of converting signals from binary coded decimal form into binary which comprises the steps of
(1) storing the binary coded decimal signals in a reentrant shift register,
(2) shifting the signals to the right by at least three places, until there is a binary ‘1’ in the second position of said register,
(3) masking out said binary ‘1’ in said second position of said register, (4) adding a binary ‘1’ to the first position of said register,
(5) shifting the signals to the left by two positions, (6) adding a ‘1’ to said first position, and
(7) shifting the signals to the right by at least three positions in preparation for a succeeding binary ‘1’
in the second position of said register.
Claim 13: A data processing method for converting binary coded decimal number representations into binary number representations comprising the steps of
(1) testing each binary digit position i, beginning with the least significant binary digit position, of the most significant decimal digit representation for a binary ‘0’ or a binary ‘1’;
(2) if a binary ‘0’ is detected, repeating step (1) for the next least significant binary digit position of said most significant decimal digit representation;
(3) if a binary ‘1’ is detected, adding a binary ‘1’ at the (i+1)th and (i+3)th least significant binary digit positions of the next lesser significant decimal digit representation, and repeating step (1) for the next least significant binary digit position of said most significant decimal digit representation;
(4) upon exhausting the binary digit positions of said most significant decimal digit representation, repeating steps (1) through (3) for the next lesser significant decimal digit representation as modified by the previous execution of steps (1) through (3); and
(5) repeating steps (1) through (4) until the second least significant decimal digit representation has been so processed.
‧
技的基本工具（“phenomena of nature, though just discovered, mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”）91。美國聯邦最高法院於本案中將「演算法（algorithm）」定義為一種用於解決 特定類型數學問題之程序92，而本案轉換編碼的方法即屬於一種演算法。美國聯 邦最高法院另指出對於未限定於特定機器之方法請求項，判斷其是否具有專利標 的 適 格 性 之 標 準 在 於 其 是 否 將 一 個 物 件 轉 換 或 轉 變 為 不 同 的 狀 態 或 事 物
（“Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines.”）93。 而系爭請求項之數學公式除了與數位電腦有所連結之外，實質上並未有實體應 用，若予以核發專利，該專利將完全獨占該數學公式，以致於實際上是給予演算 法本身專利權（“the patent would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself.”）94。
美國聯邦最高法院亦提及有論者認為方法專利必須附著於特定的機器或裝 置，或必須操作以將物品或材料轉換為不同的狀態或事物95，而這也就是日後「機 器或轉換測試（machine-or-transformation test）」之來源。
第二項 Parker v. Flook96
系爭專利係關於更新警示臨界值的方法，其中有爭議的請求項第 1 項97之方
90 Gottschalk v. Benson, supra note 88, at 64.
91 Id. at 67.
92 Id. at 65. (“A procedure for solving a given type of mathematical problem is known as an
“algorithm.”)
93 Id. at 70.
94 Id. at 71-72.
95 Id. at 71. (“It is argued that a process patent must either be tied to a particular machine or apparatus or must operate to change articles or materials to a “different state or thing.” We do not hold that no process patent could ever qualify if it did not meet the requirements of our prior precedents.”)
96 Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
97 Claim 1: A method for updating the value of at least one alarm limit on at least one process variable involved in a process comprising the catalytic chemical conversion of hydrocarbons wherein said alarm
‧
notion that post-solution activity, no matter how conventional or obvious in itself, can transform an unpatentable principle into a patentable process exalts form over substance.”）100。此外，並非將特定的自然法則運用至特定的技術領域就會自動落入第 101 條 之可專利標的101。反之，即便是眾所皆知的自然法則或數學公式，對該原理之創 造性應用仍具可專利性（“Even though a phenomenon of nature or mathematical formula may be well known, an inventive application of the principle may be patented.”）102。如果請求項本質上只是使用數學公式的計算方法，即使該方法係 用於特定的用途，該方法仍非可專利標的（“if a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory.”）103。基於上開理由，聯邦最 高法院認為系爭請求項不具可專利性。
limit has a current value of Bo + K,
wherein Bo is the current alarm base and K is a predetermined alarm offset which comprises:
(1) Determining the present value of said process variable, said present value being defined as PVL;
(2) Determining a new alarm base B1, using the following equation: B1 = Bo(1.0-F) + PVL(F), where F is a predetermined number greater than zero and less than 1.0;
(3) Determining an updated alarm limit which is defined as B1 + K; and thereafter (4) Adjusting said alarm limit to said updated alarm limit value.
98 Parker v. Flook, supra note 96, at 585.
‧
聯邦最高法院進一步歸納 Gottschalk v. Benson 及 Parker v. Flook 之判決而得 出以下結論108；
105 Claim 1: A method of operating a rubber-molding press for precision molded compounds with the aid of a digital computer, comprising:
providing said computer with a data base for said press including at least, natural logarithm conversion data (ln),
the activation energy constant (C) unique to each batch of said compound being molded, and a constant (x) dependent upon the geometry of the particular mold of the press,
initiating an interval timer in said computer upon the closure of the press for monitoring the elapsed time of said closure,
constantly determining the temperature (Z) of the mold at a location closely adjacent to the mold cavity in the press during molding,
constantly providing the computer with the temperature (Z),
repetitively calculating in the computer, at frequent intervals during each cure, the Arrhenius equation for reaction time during the cure, which is
ln v=CZ+x
where v is the total required cure time,
repetitively comparing in the computer at said frequent intervals during the cure each said calculation of the total required cure time calculated with the Arrhenius equation and said elapsed time, and opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates equivalence.
106 Id. at 184.
107 Id. at 187.
108 Id. at 191-92.
‧
求項即為第 101 條之可專利標的（“when a claim containing a mathematical formula implements or applies that formula in a structure or process which, when considered as a whole, is performing a function which the patent laws were designed to protect (e.
g., transforming or reducing an article to a different state or thing), then the claim satisfies the requirements of 101.”）。