電腦軟體專利之認定標準

第一項 電腦軟體專利標的適格性判斷基準之沿革

歐洲電腦軟體之專利標的適格性判斷標準，主要歷經以下階段： 一、技術 貢獻測試法(technical contribution approach)：若請求項之技術貢獻，僅屬於排除 項目之特徵，請求項不具有進步性。二、技術性測試法(technical character approach)：

若申請專利之發明具有技術性，即使其包括歐洲專利公約第 52 條第二項之排除 項目，亦為具備專利適格之標的。而純電腦程式本身之專利標的適格性判斷標準，

例外於電流的技術性之外，要求須產生進一步技術效果(further technical effect）。

三、技術手段測試法(any technical means¹¹⁹ approach)：如果請求項中具有任何技 術手段，便可使請求項具有技術性，而具有專利標的適格性。至於無技術手段之 純電腦程式本身，仍維持於電流的技術性外，要求須產生進一步技術效果¹²⁰。

依前述，可知專利標的適格性，並未明文於 EPC 中，係屬實務發展得出之 要件，故實務判決見解占有極為重要之地位，又觀察測試法演進過程之脈絡具有 明顯朝向逐漸開放之趨勢，以下即就各時期測試法之實務走向進行分析與說明。

第一款 技術貢獻測試法(technical contribution approach)

技術貢獻測試法之典型案例，為 1986 年 Computer-related inventions/ VICOM 案¹²¹。因其與 1985 年 EPO 首個電腦軟體相關專利案(T 16/83)¹²²，排除電腦軟體 為具備專利適格之標的不同，開啟了電腦軟體相關發明取得專利保護之大門。

VICOM 案(T 208/84)，係關於 VICOM 公司所申請「一種數位元影像處理的 方法與裝置」之發明。該發明是將原有影像之數位資料，透過軟體程式資料運算，

得到新的影像數位資料，可對原有影像資料進行修補、使畫面清晰，其方法請求 項即針對相關數學演算與方法做闡釋，並包含一執行方法請求項軟體程式之裝置 請求項，具一般性之輸入、掃描、回饋、輸出等元件，以及與方法請求項相同之 特徵。EPO 審查部認為 VICOM 案(T 208/84)的方法請求項屬 EPC 第 52 條第二項 第 a 款所排除之「數學方法」，非屬於適格之專利標的；此外，亦認為裝置請求 項僅是將方法以一般軟體方式執行於一般通用電腦，屬 EPC 第 52 條第二項第 c 款所排除之「電腦軟體」，亦非屬於適格之專利標的。

119 technical means 常見的翻譯為「技術手段或技術裝置」。惟我國審查基準之用語為「技術手段」， 為統一用語，本文均採用與我國審查基準相同之用語。

120 趙慶泠，同前註 9，頁 20。

121 The European Patent Office, Board of Appeal Decision: Computer-related inventions/VICOM (T 208/84) (1986).

122 The European Patent Office, Board of Appeal Decision: FRANCERIES (T 16/83) (1988). 技術上 訴委員會認為方法請求項與裝置請求項都是 EPC 第 52 條第二項的排除項目，非適格專利標的。

40 明與先前技術相較，整體觀之具有何技術貢獻(technical contribution)」¹²⁵。故自 VICOM 案(T208/84)後，可得知實務關於專利標的適格性之判斷，認定若請求項 為適格之專利標的。而於 1988 年 Document abstracting and retrieving/IBM 案¹²⁶中，

技術上訴委員會，於發明之技術性、技術貢獻外，又提出另一觀點：若請求項中

123 T 208/84: 5. 摘錄”A basic difference between a mathematical method and a technical process can be seen, however, in the fact that a mathematical method or algorithm is carried out on numbers and provides a result also in numerical form, the mathematical method or algorithm being only an abstract concept prescribing how to operate on numbers. No direct technical result is produced by the method as such. In contract thereto, if a mathematical method is used in a technical process, the process is carried out on a physical entity by some technical means implementing the method and provides as its result a certain change in that entity.”

124 李清祺、馮聖原 (2015)，〈電腦軟體發明專利制度探討─我國與歐洲制度發展的演進〉，《智

慧財產權月刊》，201 期，頁 52。

125 趙慶泠，同前註 9，頁 22。

126 The European Patent Office, Board of Appeal Decision: Document abstracting and retrieving/IBM (T 22/85) (1988).

127 T 22/85: 9.”The contribution to the art and the effects obtained are only in the area of the excluded activity and the true nature of the invention remains the same, whether or not a technical terminology is used in expressing it.”無論是否有以技術用語進行闡釋，技術貢獻及所獲得之效果僅存在於被排除 之項目中，則該請求項之本質仍維持不變。亦即，依舊為不具專利適格之標的。

128 T 22/85: 2.”Whatever their differences, these exclusions have in common that they refer to activities which do not aim at any direct technical result but are rather of an abstract and intellectual character.”

41

第二款 技術性測試法(technical character approach)

前述之「技術貢獻測試法」，係以「與先前技術相較是否具技術貢獻」來判 較具指標性的判決，為 1998 年 Computer program products/IBM 案¹³⁰。

在 1998 年 IBM 案(T 1173/97)之前，涉及電腦軟體之方法與裝置請求項，透 過技術貢獻測試法，已被認為屬於適格之專利標的，但尚未對純電腦程式產品 (computer program product)作成相關決定書。IBM 案(T 1173/97)之爭議內容，即 是電腦程式產品請求項是否為 EPC 第 52 條第二、三項之電腦軟體本身。技術上

「技術問題(technical problem)」及「技術特徵(technical feature)」，與審查基準對 於發明須具有「技術性(technical character)」之要求相同¹³⁵，加上專利標的適格

129 李清祺、馮聖原，同前註 124，頁 55-56。

130 The European Patent Office, Board of Appeal Decision: Computer program products/IBM (T 1173/97) (1998).

131 TRIPS Article27(1)”Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application.…”

132 T 1173/97: 4.1 摘錄”The combination of the two provisions(Article 52(2) and (3)

EPC)demonstrates that the legislators did not want to exclude from patentability all programs for computers. In other words that fact that only patent applications relating to programs for computers as such are excluded from patentability means that patentability may be allowed for patent applications relating to programs for computers where that latter are not considered to be programs for computers as such.”

133 Implementing Regulations Rule 42, supra note 116。

134 Implementing Regulations to the Convention on the Grant of European Patents, Rule43(Form and content of claims) (2016), available at

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2016/e/r43.html (Last visited: 01/19/2020)

135 Guidelines for Examination, GI.2Further requirements of an invention (2019), available at https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_i_2.htm (Last visited: 01/19/2020)

42 電流的技術性之外，產生進一步技術效果(further technical effect)¹³⁸。至於 IBM 案 (T 1173/97)中之電腦程式產品，觀察其請求項內容，包含軟體程式碼及儲存於電 為合適¹⁴⁰。相同見解，亦出現於 2000 年 Controlling pension benefits system/PBS PARTERSHIP 退休金收益案¹⁴¹，除更加明確認為，技術貢獻之使用，混淆「發明」

與「新穎性」和「進步性」之要求，應廢棄該測試法，強調以技術性作為發明定 義標準判斷，並進一步說明：技術性之具備，係當發明具有技術效果或含有為實 現發明所需之技術考量(technical consideration)¹⁴²。

「技術性測試法」於 1998 年 IBM 案(T 1173/97)中出現，顯示出實務對於專 利標的適格性認定基準態度之鬆綁，亦引發其與「技術貢獻測試法」之衝突，直 至 2000 年之 PBS 案(T 931/95)，技術上訴委員會正式確立「技術性測試法」之採

136 李清祺、馮聖原，同前註 124，頁 57。

137 T 1173/97: 6.3 “Although such modification may be considered to be technical, they are a common feature of all those programs for computers which have been made suitable for being run on a computer, and therefore cannot be used to distinguish programs for computers which a technical character from programs for computers as such.”

138 T 1173/97: 6.4.

139 T 1173/97: 9.4 “A computer program product may therefore possess a technical character because it has the ‘potential’ to cause a predetermined further technical effect in the above sense.”

140 T 1173/97: 8. “Determining the technical contribution an invention achieves with respect to the prior art is therefore more appropriate for the purpose of examining novelty and inventive step than for deciding on possible exclusion under Article 52 (2)and(3)”.

141 The European Patent Office, Controlling pension benefits system/PBS PARTERSHIP (T 931/95) (2000).

142 T 931/95: 2. “Thus an invention may be an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) if for example a technical effect is achieved by the invention or if technical considerations are required to carry out the invention (Case Law of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office, 3rd edition, 1998, chapter I.A.1; Guidelines for Examination C-IV, 2.2).”

43

用，並給予「技術性」定義，認定「技術性是表現在所獲得之技術效果，或實施 發明時有技術考量」。同時，將技術貢獻之概念運用於審查進步性，也使得電腦 軟體進步性之發展漸趨明朗¹⁴³。

第三款 技術手段測試法(any technical means approach)

前述提及之 PBS 案(T 931/95)，除確立「技術性測試法」之地位，亦指出「使 用技術手段於單純非技術目的，或用於處理單純非技術資訊，未必給予單一步驟 或整體方法請求項技術性¹⁴⁴」，在專利標的適格性判斷標準放寬之餘，同時賦予 技術目的、技術資訊相關等限制。關於 PBS 案(T 931/95)之見解，在 2004 年 Auction method/HITACHI 拍賣方法案¹⁴⁵中，技術上訴委員會提出不同之意見，其於重申 技術貢獻不適用於發明定義之判斷外¹⁴⁶，亦認為先前認定技術性之要求(技術效 將其區分，且非技術特徵內容可能含有之技術部分(technical aspects)，於進步性 階段判斷應該較為容易¹⁴⁷，此外，根據請求項中技術特徵的平庸程度(degree of banality)來評估技術性，實則受「技術貢獻測試法」之影響，故應廢棄 PBS 案(T 931/95)之見解。對此，技術上訴委員會又進一步說明「決定發明是否屬 EPC 第

144 T 931/95: 3. “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.”

145 The European Patent Office, Board of Appeal Decision: Auction method /HITACHI (T 258/03) (2004).

146 T 258/03: 3.3.(T 1173/97 and T 931/95)

147 T 258/03: 3.6 “it is often difficult to separate a claim into technical and non-technical features, and an invention may have technical aspects which are hidden in a largely non-technical context. Such technical aspects may be easier to identify within the framework of the examination as to inventive step,…”

148 T 258/03: 4.5 “What matters having regard to the concept of ‘invention’ within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC is the presence of technical character which may be implied by the physical features of an entity or the nature of an activity, or may be conferred to a non-technical activity by the use of technical means.”

149 趙慶泠，同前註 9，頁 32-33。

150 T 258/03: 4.7 “It is therefore concluded that, in general, a method involving technical means is an invention within the meaning of Article 52(1) EPC.”

44 具技術性。電腦可讀取媒體為一包含於載體之技術產品，依 HITACHI 案(T 258/03) 之判決亦可得出此決定¹⁵³，至於電腦可讀取媒體中之電腦可執行指令，技術上訴 委員會引用 IBM 案(T 1173/97)之判決見解，認可倘具進一步技術效果之潛力，

即 非 屬 電 腦 程 式 本 身 ， 而 是 屬 於 具 技 術 性 之 請 求 項 標 的¹⁵⁴。 基 於 以 上 MICROSOFT 案(T 424/03)之判決內容，除穩定「技術手段測試法」之使用，尚 可發現技術上訴委員會指出何為技術手段，亦即請求項 1 中之記憶體，將硬體視

151 The European Patent Office, Board of Appeal Decision: Clipboard doormats/MICROSOFT (T 424/03) (2006).

152 T 424/03: 5.1 “A computer system including a memory (clipboard) is a technical means, and consequently the claimed method has technical character in accordance with established case law.”

153 T 424/03: 5.3 “The subject-matter of claim 5 has technical character since it relates to a

computer-readable medium, i.e. a technical product involving a carrier (see decision T 258/03 - Auction method/Hitachi cited above).”

154 T 424/03: 5.3 “Moreover, the computer-executable instructions have the potential of achieving the above-mentioned further technical effect of enhancing the internal operation of the computer, which goes beyond the elementary interaction of any hardware and software of data processing (see T 1173/97-Computer program product/IBM; OJ EPO 1999, 609). The computer program recorded on the medium is therefore not considered to be a computer program as such, and thus also contributes to the technical character of the claimed subject-matter.”

155 The European Patent Office, Board of Appeal Decision: Programs for Computers (G 3/08) (2010), 10.6 “This approach, at least as formulated in e.g. T 258/03, Hitachi(OJ EPO 2004, 575) and T 424/03, has been characterized in some of the amicus curiae briefs as the ‘any hardware’ or ‘any technical means’ approach.”

156 The European Patent Office, supra note 5, at 6.

157 Guidelines for Examination, GII.3.3 Mathematical methods (2019), available at

https://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/guidelines/e/g_ii_3_3.htm (Last visited: 01/19/2020)

158 Guidelines for Examination, supra note 8. “Terms such as ‘support vector machine’, ‘reasoning engine’ or ‘neural network’ may, depending on the context, merely refer to abstract models or

algorithms and thus do not, on their own, necessarily imply the use of a technical means. This has to be

45

自此，已不需再判斷是否相較於先前技術有技術貢獻、是否具有技術效果或技術 考量，只要具有技術手段，即符合 EPC 第 52 條第一項發明之定義。然而，未如 審理 PBS 案(T 931/95)時定義「技術性」，於 HITACHI 案(T 258/03)中，技術上訴 委員會並未說明何謂「技術手段」，即使其後的 MICROSOFT 案(T 424/03)有指出 相關技術手段為何，亦不足以達到確定之程度，使得認定何為技術手段之範圍，

自此，已不需再判斷是否相較於先前技術有技術貢獻、是否具有技術效果或技術 考量，只要具有技術手段，即符合 EPC 第 52 條第一項發明之定義。然而，未如 審理 PBS 案(T 931/95)時定義「技術性」，於 HITACHI 案(T 258/03)中，技術上訴 委員會並未說明何謂「技術手段」，即使其後的 MICROSOFT 案(T 424/03)有指出 相關技術手段為何，亦不足以達到確定之程度，使得認定何為技術手段之範圍，

在文檔中 人工智慧專利保護要件之研究 (頁 49-63)