|
This is a list of special types of claims that may be found in a patent or patent application. For explanations about independent and dependent claims and about the different categories of claims, i.e. product or apparatus claims (claims referring to a physical entity), and process, method or use claims (claims referring to an activity), see Claim (patent), section "Basic types and categories". == Beauregard == In United States patent law, a Beauregard claim is a claim to a computer program written in the form of a claim to an article of manufacture: a computer-readable medium on which are encoded, typically, instructions for carrying out a process. This type of claim is named after the decision ''In re Beauregard''.〔''(In re Beauregard )'', 53 F.3d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1995).〕 The computer-readable medium that these claims contemplate is typically a floppy disk or CD-ROM, which is why this type of claim is sometimes called a "floppy disk" claim.〔See Victor Siber and Marilyn S. Dawkins, Claiming Computer-Related Inventions As Articles of Manufacture, 35 IDEA 13 (1994). The ''Beauregard'' case was a test case brought by Victor Siber, IBM's chief patent lawyer at the time, to test the legal theories advanced in his IDEA article.〕 In the past claims to pure instructions were generally considered not patentable because they were viewed as "printed matter," that is, like a set of instructions written down on paper. However, in ''In re Beauregard'' the Federal Circuit vacated for reconsideration in the PTO the patent-eligibility of a claim to a computer program encoded in a floppy disk, regarded as an article of manufacture.〔The court remanded to the PTO on the agency's motion for permission to reopen examination in the light of proposed Guidelines on patent-eligibilty. The court did not expressly decide whether ''Beauregard'' claims are patent-eligible.〕 Consequently, such computer-readable media claims are commonly referred to as ''Beauregard'' claims. When first used in the mid-1990s, ''Beauregard'' claims held an uncertain status, as long-standing doctrine held that media that contained merely "non-functional" data (i.e., data that did not interact with the substrate on which it was printed) could not be patented. This was the "printed matter" doctrine which ruled that no "invention" that primarily constituted printed words on a page or other information, as such, could be patented. The case from which this claim style derives its name, ''In re Beauregard'' (1995), involved a dispute between a patent applicant who claimed an invention in this fashion, and the PTO, which rejected it under this rationale. The appellate court (the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) accepted the applicant's appeal - but chose to remand for reconsideration (rather than affirmatively ruling on it) when the Commissioner of Patents essentially conceded and abandoned the agency's earlier position. Thus, the courts have not expressly ruled on the acceptability of the ''Beauregard'' claim style, but its legal status was for a time accepted.〔Ex parte Bo Li, Appeal 2008-1213, at 9 (BPAI 2008) and MPEP 2105.01, I.〕 However, although time has rendered the issue essentially moot with regard to conventional media, such claims were originally and perhaps still can be more widely applied.〔Richard H. Stern, ''(An Attempt To Rationalize Floppy Disk Claims )'', 17 J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 183 (1998).〕 The particular inventions to which ''Beauregard''-style claims were originally directed—i.e., programs encoded on tangible computer-readable media (CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, etc.)—are no longer as important commercially, because software deployment is rapidly shifting from tangible computer-readable media to network-transfer distribution (Internet delivery). Thus, ''Beauregard''-style claims are now less commonly drafted and prosecuted. However, electronic distribution was practiced even during the time when the ''Beauregard'' case was decided and patent drafters therefore soon tailored their claimed "computer readable medium" to encompass more than just floppy disks, ROMs, or other stable storage media, by extending the concept to information encoded on a carrier wave (such as radio) or transmitted over the Internet. Two important developments have occurred since the mid and late 1990s, which have a drastic impact on the viability of "Beauregard" claims. First, in ''In re Nuijten'',〔500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007).〕 the Federal Circuit held that signals were not patent eligible, because their ephemeral nature kept them from falling within the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101, such as articles of manufacture. That eliminated much of the market for Beauregard claims to computer programs electronically distributed. Second, the decisions of the Supreme Court leading up to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International〔573 U.S. __, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).〕 appeared to exclude what amounted to a patent on information from the patent system. In ''CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions Inc.'',〔654 F. 3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011).〕 the Federal Circuit first held a method for detecting credit card fraud patent ineligible and then held a corresponding Beauregard claim similarly patent ineligible because it too simply claimed a “mere manipulation or reorganization of data.”〔The PTO’s internal appeals board had held, “A computer readable media including program instructions . . . to an otherwise nonstatutory process claim is insufficient to make it statutory.”''Ex parte Cornea-Hasegan'', 89 U.S.P.Q.2d 1557, 1561 (B.P.A.I. 2009); accord ''Ex parte Mewherter'', 107 U.S.P.Q.2d 1857, 1859 (PTAB 2013).〕 After the ''Cybersource'' decision, the Supreme Court’s decision in the ''Alice'' case made the status of Beauregard claims even more uncertain. At the very least, if the underlying method claim is not patent eligible, recasting the claim in Beauregard format will not improve the patent eligibility. Claims of this type have been allowed by the European Patent Office (EPO). However, a more general claim form of "a computer program for instructing a computer to perform the method of (method claim )" is allowed, and no specific medium needs to be specified.〔Technical Board of Appeal Decision T1173/97〕 The UK Patent Office (aka IPO) began to allow computer program claims following this revised EPO practice, but then began to refuse them in 2006 after the decision of Aerotel/Macrossan. The UK High Court overruled this practice by decision,〔2008 EWHC 85 (Pat).〕 so that now they are again allowable in the UK as well, as they have been continuously at the EPO. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「List of patent claim types」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|