USPTO 對 Peer-to-Patent 的 E-mail 說帖

FACT: It is an average of 44 months (almost 4 years) before you, the inventor, receive a First Office Action on the Merits of your patent application in Technology Center 2100 (Computer Architecture, Software, and Information Security).

FACT: If you participate in Peer-To-Patent you could have a First Office Action on the Merits for that same application in only 23 months, and as little as 7 months if you opt for early publication.

That's potentially 3 years faster and at no additional cost to you the inventor! What else might you invent with 3 years saved? How much would your business benefit from help finding the prior art to make your application the best it can be?

This pilot program runs only through June 2008 and is limited to 250 applications with special priority being given to inventors with fewer than 25 patents.

Join already-participating companies such as GE, HP, IBM, Microsoft and other small inventors in this historic initiative to open up the patent examination process for public submission of prior art and commentary.

簡單的說列於Peer-to-Patent的案件可以增快審查速度。大家快去貢獻你的申請案吧！

Economist's report on "Peer to Patent"

Economist 的報導：A patent improvement

如果美國專利商標局，施行的成效良好，UKPO，也會加入"Peer to Patent"的措施。

Peer to Patent Lunch!

網址在這裡，http://www.peertopatent.org/

集眾人的力量在公開階段就進行公眾審查，審查官你不可以混了 ... XD。

EPO 公布依據 EPC2000 修訂的審查基準草稿

來源:EPC2000 Guidelines

目前在EPO網頁的只有英文版，EPC2000與舊EPC的對照表。

EC 推出 EPLA的折衷方案

原文:
1. http://www.itworld.com/Man/2687/070403eupatent/
2. http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200704/1233e2bf-4179-41a3-a3b7-a2f8ff9ee94f.htm

EU內部市場行政長官McCreevy提議一個EU自己執法方式，專利訴訟的第一審訴訟在國家專門的法院中進行，並且建立一個中央上訴法院。中央的上訴法院則設在歐洲最高法院下(European Court of Justice，ECJ目前是歐洲的終審法院)。

贊成意見

• SMB大部分的專利僅在一個國家實施。
• 只有10%不到專利訴訟在一個以上的國家發生。

反對意見

• 中小企業仍必須花費翻譯的費用到各個國家申請專利。
• 大企業必須一個一個國家來打侵權訴訟，耗費金錢與時間。
• 新的提案對目前破碎，不完整的歐洲專利制度沒有幫助。不同的國家法院法官會因為法律的不同解釋，對一些具爭議性的問題，有不同的見解。而且國家法院的法官又會如何去回應ECJ的判決呢?

Google Patent Search Review (1)

別人寫的好文，還有一些好用的連結，有需要的自己進去看。

Google Patent

已經用過一陣子了，還不錯。台灣與歐洲專利局都要進步啊 ...

EPO回絕UK上訴法院重新審視軟體專利標準的要求

原文:EPO rejects Court of Appeal request to review software patent law

UK上訴法院在裁決了Macrossan vs UK Patent Office後，要求EPO 召開擴大上訴委員會(Enlarged Board of Appeal, Enlaged BoA)，針對EPC 第52 條第二款不予專利的標的進行定義，以解決歐洲專利局上訴委員會見解不一致的問題。

不過由於Enlaged BoA成立的發動權在EPO主席，而EPO主席 Pompidou經回覆給UK上訴法院，表示目前並未見到需要成立Enlaged BoA的理由。

註1 EPC Article 52
(1) European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step.
(2) The following in particular shall not be regarded as inventions within the meaning of paragraph 1:
(a) discoveries, scientific theories and mathematical methods;
(b) aesthetic creations;
(c) schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers;
(d) presentations of information.
(3) The provisions of paragraph 2 shall exclude patentability of the subject-matter or activities referred to in that provision only to the extent to which a European patent application or European patent relates to such subject-matter or activities as such.
(4) Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body shall not be regarded as inventions which are susceptible of industrial application within the meaning of paragraph 1. This provision shall not apply to products, in particular substances or compositions, for use in any of these methods.

註2 網際網路上電腦程式本身傳輸之專利
「2. EPO重新詮釋EPC第52條第2、3項的排除條款」 段

EPO將引進會員國專利審查結果

原EPO計畫網頁，提供給參予會員國之須知。

其實就是將會員國專利局原來已經完成的分類，檢索，審查工作的成果資料，交換給EPO。省去一部份與EPO重複的審查工作，加快專利審查速度。目前參予的會員國專利局，有奧地利，丹麥，德國，與英國，交換的重點資料大概有以下數項：

3. ECLA
4. IPC
5. NATIONAL SEARCH REPORT
6. NATIONAL WRITTEN OPINION OR EXAMINATION REPORT

個人看法，這是不是EPO準備要把審查工作外包出去的先導計畫啊?