第四章 歐洲電腦實施商業方法之專利適格性
第二節 歐洲專利局上訴委員會重要案例分類
其對於習知技術是否具有「技術貢獻(technical contribution)」。
準此，上訴委員會認為系爭請求項是把數學方法導入技術程序中，且此技術
214 Claim 1: A method of digitally processing images in the form of a two-dimensional data array having elements arranged in rows and columns in which an operator matrix of a size substantially smaller than the size of the data array is convolved with the data array, including sequentially scanning the elements of the data array with the operator matrix, characterised in that the method includes repeated cycles of sequentially scanning the entire data array with a small generating kernel operator matrix to generate a convolved array and then replacing the data array as a new data array; the small generating kernel remaining the same for any single scan of the entire data array and although comprising at least a multiplicity of elements, nevertheless being of a size substantially smaller than is required of a conventional operator matrix in which the operator matrix is convolved with the data array only one, and the cycle being repeated for each previous new data array by selecting the small generating kernel operator matrices and the number of cycles according to conventional error minimisation techniques until the last new data array generated is substantially the required convolution of the original data array with the conventional operator matrix.
‧
technical effect)」測試法來判斷電腦程式之專利適格性。系爭專利請求項第 21 項 係儲存於電腦可用媒體之電腦程式產品，其包含電腦可讀取程式，用以使電腦控 (technical character)之程式。上 訴 委 員 會 認 為 電 腦 程 式 在 電 腦 上 執 行 時 所 造 成 的 硬 體 的 物 理 改 變
（physical modifications），例如產生電流，可能被視為具有技術性。然此種改變 只是所有電腦程式在電腦上執行時皆會產生的一般特徵，故並無法據此區分具有
215 袁建中，前揭註 208，頁 68。
216 Ballardini, supra note 211, at 566.
217 T1173/97 (1998).
218 Claim 21: A computer program product stored on a computer usable medium, comprising:
computer readable program means for causing a computer to control an execution of an application (56 A);
computer readable program means for causing the computer to implement a commit procedure, especially a two-phase commit procedure for said application (56 A);
computer readable program means for causing the computer to notify said application (56 A) to continue to run in the event said commit procedure fails before completion, whereby said application (56 A) need not wait for said commit procedure to be completed; and
computer readable program means for causing the computer to resynchronize said incomplete commit procedure asynchronously relative to said application (56 A).
‧
和電腦（硬體）間的一般物理互動的進一步技術功效(further technical effect)，則 該電腦程式就不會被 EPC 第 52 條第 2 項及第 3 項排除於專利適格客體之外。
在2000年之PBS案220中，上訴委員會對於商業方法與實施商業方法之裝置的 專利適格性作出不同的見解。系爭專利係管理雇主的退休金收益之方法及裝置，
其中請求項第1項為控制退休金收益之方法，由雇主輸入員工號碼、薪資及年齡，
再藉由計算裝置決定所有登錄員工的定期壽險給付221。歐洲專利局審查部門認為 系爭請求項係關於一種商業方法(method for doing business)，其不具技術性 (technical character)且對於習知技術無法提供任何技術貢獻，故系爭請求項屬於
219 Ballardini, supra note 211, at 566.
220 T0931/95 (2000).
221 Claim 1: A method of controlling a pension benefits program by administering at least one subscriber employer account on behalf of each subscriber employer's enrolled employees each of whom is to receive periodic benefits payments, said method comprising:
providing to a data processing means information from each said subscriber employer defining the number, earnings and ages of all enrolled employees of the said subscriber employer;
determining the average age of all enrolled employees by average age computing means;
determining the periodic cost of life insurance for all enrolled employees of said subscriber employer by life insurance cost computing means; and
estimating all administrative, legal, trustee, and government premium yearly expenses for said subscriber employer by administrative cost computing means;
the method producing, in use, information defining each subscriber employer's periodic monetary contribution to a master trust, the face amount of a life insurance policy on each enrolled employee's life to be purchased from a life insurer and assigned to the master trust and to be maintained in full force and effect until the death of the said employee, and periodic benefits to be received by each enrolled employee upon death, disability or retirement.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
EPC第52條第3項所稱的非法定標的之商業方法本身。
上訴委員會認為系爭請求項之方法只是單純利用資料處理手段去處理純粹 管理上、精算上或財務上之特徵，該方法每一步驟皆純粹屬於經濟學上之步驟。
利用技術手段來達到非技術之目的或者處理非技術之資訊不必然產生技術性（“A feature of a method which concerns the use of technical means for a purely non-technical purpose and/or for processing purely non-technical information does not necessarily confer a technical character to such a method.”）。而系爭請求項僅涉 及經濟學概念以及實施商業方法，因此並非EPC第52條第1項所稱之發明。
然而，針對系爭專利中用於實施上開商業方法之裝置請求項，上訴委員會卻 認為其屬於EPC第52條第1項所稱之發明。上訴委員會認為構成用於實施或支持 經濟活動的物理實體或具體產品的裝置屬於EPC第52條第1項所稱之發明（“An apparatus constituting a physical entity or concrete product suitable for performing or supporting an economic activity, is an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.”），其理由在於EPC第52條第2項第c款的用語並未提及物理實體或產品相關 的裝置（“This distinction with regard to patentability between a method for doing business and an apparatus suited to perform such a method is justified in the light of the wording of Article 52(2)(c) EPC, according to which “schemes, rules and methods” are non-patentable categories in the field of economy and business, but the category of “apparatus” in the sense of “physical entity” or “product” is not mentioned in Article 52(2) EPC.”）。因為上開見解認為只要請求項中有使用任何物 理實體便不會被EPC第52條第2項及第3項所排除，故此見解便被稱為「任何硬體 (any hardware)」測試法222。
此外，上訴委員會指出技術性為EPC第52條第1項所稱之發明的隱含要件
（“Having technical character is an implicit requirement of the EPC to be met by an invention in order to be an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC”）。上訴
222 Marsnik & Thomas, supra note 80, at 288.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
委員會亦指出歐洲專利公約第52條並未規定發明必須具有技術貢獻。在判斷專利 標的適格性時審酌技術貢獻實係混淆對「發明」的要求與對「新穎性」及「進步 性」的要求。上訴委員會認為技術貢獻應在判斷進步性時再予以審酌，而系爭請 求項因缺乏技術貢獻而不具進步性。
PBS決定將軟體發明通過發明定義障礙再予降低，取消原本應考量技術貢獻 的關卡，但在進步性則以嚴謹的規則審查，使得軟體發明一再挑戰可專利性的戰 場移轉到進步性223。
自PBS案之後，EPO在實體審查上漸漸發展出二階段測試法。第一階段為法 定標的之認定，以判斷技術性(technical character)為主，強調必須具有技術功效 (technical effect)或技術考量(technical considerations)，或者若是電腦程式產品、資 料結構產品或記錄媒體，則是必須具有進一步技術功效(further technical effect)。
第二階段則為進步性之認定，以判斷技術貢獻(technical contribution)為主，採用
「問題與解答」測試法(problem-and-solution approach)224。根據歐洲專利局上訴 委員會案例集（case law of the EPO boards of appeal），上開測試法之步驟為：（1）
判定最接近的先前技術、（2）確定所欲解決的技術問題及（3）考量系爭發明對 於所屬技術領域具有通常知識者是否顯而易知225。
第四項 案例總結
上訴委員會在2006年之DUNS案226中歸納出上述等案例關於電腦軟體發明 可專利性之見解。系爭專利係關於估計銷售狀況之方法，其中請求項第1項為估 計商品在商店銷售狀況之方法，利用資料庫來估計商店之銷售狀況，該資料庫包 括各商店之地理及特徵資料227。
223 劉國讚、周汝文，論電腦軟體關聯發明之可專利性—以歐洲專利局審查實務為中心，智慧財
產月刊，112 期，頁 35，2008 年 4 月。
224 袁建中，前揭註 208，頁 70。
225 http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/caselaw/2013/e/clr_i_d_2.htm (last visited:
2015/2/20).
226 T0154/04 (2006).
227 Claim 1: A method for estimating sales activity of a product at sales outlets (U1,U2) comprising:
‧
(B) 技術性（technical character）為EPC第52條第1項所稱之發明的隱含要件
（技術性(technicality)要件）。
receiving sales data for said product from a plurality of first sales outlets (S1-S5);
providing a database (205) of sales outlets, said database including geographic data and characterizing data from said first sales outlets (S1-S5) and at least one other sales outlet (U1,U2);
determining the distance dsu between said other sales outlet (U1,U2) and each of a selected plurality of said first sales outlets (S1-S5) using said geographic data;
formulating a weighting factor for each of said selected plurality of said first sales outlets and said other sales outlet, said weighting factor being a function of said distance and said characterizing data;
and
estimating the sales of said other sales outlet (U1,U2) using said sales data for said selected first sales outlets (S1-S5) and said weighting factors.