專利法上充分揭露要件之研究-以美國法為主

鐘育儒(YU-JU CHUNG)

指導教授 ： 陳文吟

國立中正大學/法學院/財經法律學系/碩士(2015年)

摘要

充分揭露要件與產業上可利用性、新穎性及進步性等其他專利要件同為發明人申請專利時之必備要件。在美國法上，充分揭露要件規定於美國專利法第112條，可區分為書面說明要件、據以實施要件及最佳實施利要件。書面說明要件能確保發明人取得與其實際發明相符之專利保護，自有其存在之必要性；據以實施要件則確保在相同領域具有相當技術之人可以在無庸過度試驗之前提下實施專利發明，現今美國實務上就據以實施要件之審核轉趨嚴格，然本文以為仍應區分可預測領域及不可預測領域而異其判斷標準；在國際化潮流下，最佳實施例要件之存廢仍有正反不同意見，然修正後之美國專利法，最佳實施例要件已不得作為第三人主張專利無效、揭露不適當及任何專利訴訟上請求權之基礎，本文針對最佳實施例要件之存廢提出廣泛探討。

我國專利法就充分揭露要件之重視程度不若美國法，我國專利法第26條第1項雖有充分揭露要件之規定，然其規定過於簡陋，未明確區分書面說明要件、據以實施要件及最佳實施例要件等，適用上容易產生困擾。本文解析我國專利法第26條第1項之規定，認為仍應修法明確區分書面說明要件與據以實施要件，退步之，至少仍應以合目的性之法條解釋將書面說明要件包括於現行專利法第26條第1項之範疇。此外，本文認為考量全球專利制度之一體性，我國應無再行增訂最佳實施例要件之必要。

關鍵字

最佳實施例要件 ； 據以實施要件 ； 書面說明要件 ； 充分揭露要件 ； 美國修正專利法 ； 明確性 ； 可預測性

並列摘要

Disclosure requirement, utility, novelty and inventive step are necessaryconditions when inventors applying their patent. According to 35 U.S. Code § 112, disclosure requirement can be classified into three different subjects: description requirement, enablement requirement and best mode requirement. Description requirement can assure inventors acquire their patent protection which exactly match what they invented, hence, it’s impossible to ignore its exist.Enablement requirement let person having ordinary skill in the art could manage patent invention without undue experimentation. Nowadays, to apply enablement requirement in America is getting stricter than ever, however, this thesis is focused on the difference between predictable and unpredictable areas to value the standards. With internationalize trends, as to the issue whether to keep or abandon best mode requirement, people are still not on the same pages. After LeahySmith America Invents Act, best mode requirement is no longer the issue when third party asserts others’ patent is invalid, improper disclosure or other legal action, this thesis is focused on the issue whether to keep or abandon best mode requirement.

Disclosure requirement is less valued in our country than in America, although there are provisions for disclosure requirement in patent law §26(1) in Taiwan, they are just too simple and crude, there is no classify area for description requirement, enablement requirement and best mode requirement, it could make people confused. This thesis analyzes the previsions of patent law §26(1), and asserts that description requirement, enablement requirement should be clarified , at least, it should be expressed with law to including description requirement into patent law §26(1) to match the purpose. In addition, this thesis claims in order to consider the consistency of global patent homonization, it is not necessary to add best mode requirement.

參考文獻

2. 蘇仁濬，專利法揭露要求之研究，國立台灣大學科際整合法律學研究所，民國一百年一月。

8. 楊慶隆，發明專利實體申復答辯，經濟部智慧財產局，民國九十六年。

10.蔡明誠，專利法，經濟部智慧財產局，民國九十六年。

8.謝銘洋，專利法「充分揭露達可據以實施」要件之探討，法令月刊，第62卷第4期，第19-31頁，民國一百年四月。

16. Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365(Fed. Cir. 2007).