美国专利法102(e)与台湾专利法第23条于进步性判断之不同点
专利工程师 刘哲郎
2012-09-03


根据台湾专利法第23条规定，「申请专利之发明，与申请在先而在其申请后始公开或公告之发明或新型专利申请案所附说明书或图式载明之内容相同者，不得取得发明专利。但其申请人与申请在先之发明或新型专利申请案之申请人相同者，不在此限。」另外，美国专利法102(e)规定，「A person shall be entitled to a patent unless--(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b) [35 USC 122(b)], by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) [35 USC 351(a)] shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.」

依前段所述，台湾及美国专利法皆有类似之规定。具体而言，这是一般在比"申请日"的新颖性规定，换言之，即便先申请案之公开或公告日晚于后申请案之申请日，若先申请案之说明书或图式与后申请案相同，则后申请案将会因为先申请案拟制为后申请案之先前技术，而丧失新颖性。

其中，在台湾专利法中并未规定此一拟制丧失新颖性可适用于进步性之判断。根据台湾专利法第22条第4项之进步性规定：「申请专利之发明为该发明所属技术领域中具有通常知识者依申请前之先前技术所能轻易完成者，不得取得发明专利。」此处所谓之先前技术，其判断方式之一系该先前技术是否公开或公告而可使不特定人得以阅览或知悉。因此，若是在先申请案未公开之情况下，具有通常知识者自然无法依该未公开之先申请案以完成该发明。

相反地，美国专利法103(a)有关进步性之规定，「(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 」简言之，美国专利法第103(a)关于进步性的核驳理由，已包含拟制丧失新颖性102(e)之部分！
    
综上所述，美国专利法与台湾专利法虽皆有类似拟制丧失新颖性之法律规定，然而，针对适用拟致丧失新颖性之前案，仅有美国可进一步适用于进步性之判断。

参考数据
专利法(民国100年12月21日修正，※本法规部分或全部条文尚未生效) ，智慧财产法院，全国法规数据库
http://law.moj.gov.tw/LawClass/LawContent.aspx?PCODE=J0070007

美国专利法102(e)、103(a)