美國軟體專利適格性之研究 —談審查之趨勢與我國企業的因應之道

以作者查詢圖書館館藏

、以作者查詢臺灣博碩士

、以作者查詢全國書目

、勘誤回報

、線上人數：160

、訪客IP：18.191.186.72

姓名

陳俊文(Chun-Wen Chen) 查詢紙本館藏

畢業系所

產業經濟研究所

論文名稱

美國軟體專利適格性之研究 —談審查之趨勢與我國企業的因應之道
(A Study of Software Patent Eligibility Recent Developments and Suggestions for Taiwanese Corporations)

相關論文

★ 網路中立原則 - 我國管制可能性之研究	★ 電子投票與民主參與－以英國之實驗經驗為借鏡
★ 智慧財產證券化—法制環境之檢討與建議	★ 開放源碼軟體商業應用之法律爭議及其可能之解決途徑
★ Google Books計畫所涉之法律問題研析─以反托拉斯法律相關議題為中心	★ 論債權式新資金引入—以公司重整制度為中心
★ 頻譜資源分配之政策─以開放模式為目標	★ 律師業管理機制與公平交易法衝突之研究─從法易通案談起
★ 專利主張實體問題之研究─以美國經驗為借鏡	★ 論跨媒體合併行為之管制―以民主機能之健全為中心
★ 雲端個人健康資訊系統專法芻議 ─以平衡、有效之隱私保護為核心	★ 離職後競業禁止約款之適法性研究－以人才流動自由化為政策取向
★ 網路環境中之著作權法第一次銷售原則－迷思之化解與困境之突破	★ 非實施專利實體與專利訴訟－美國發明法實施前後之實證分析
★ 新興市場中之合作與競爭—以U.S. v. Apple案為中心	★ 隱私權於資訊時代中之再思考－以被遺忘權為核心

檔案

[Endnote RIS 格式]

[Bibtex 格式]

[相關文章]

[文章引用]

[完整記錄]

[館藏目錄]

[檢視]

[下載]

本電子論文使用權限為同意立即開放。
已達開放權限電子全文僅授權使用者為學術研究之目的，進行個人非營利性質之檢索、閱讀、列印。
請遵守中華民國著作權法之相關規定，切勿任意重製、散佈、改作、轉貼、播送，以免觸法。

摘要(中)

美國軟體專利適格性自Benson案起，經歷一連串判決的作出，到Bilski案之前呈現逐步放寬的趨勢。然而隨著軟體專利獲證數量的大幅度成長，專利濫發與濫訴的現象也日益嚴重。這樣的現象使得最高法院不得不一改以往鮮少介入專利相關判決的態度，開始透過判決的作成影響過去過於鬆散的專利審查作業。最高法院自Bilksi案開始，陸續作出一系列以專利法第101條適格性要件核駁系爭專利的判決，使得專利適格性的審查，走向越趨嚴格的方向。由於專利適格性要件在專利審查實務作業當中長期被忽略，近幾年最高法院對這項似乎被人遺忘的專利檢驗要件，透過判決的不斷強調也引起各界廣大的討論。
我國於美國的專利獲證數量排名全球第四，對於軟體專利適格性審查之發展潛勢自然相當重視。由是，本論文將蒐集歷年之重要軟體專利判決、專利適格性審查指南且將之進行整理。在參考相關國內外文獻後，提出本論文對軟體專利適格性審查趨勢之觀察，並為我國企業在面臨專利適格性審查趨於嚴格的情況下，提出幾個專利申請，或面臨專利侵權訴訟時可行的因應之道。

摘要(英)

In America, software related product or process was once an unpatentable subject matter. While with the advancement of technology, this kind of rule has started to change. From Benson to Bilski, the total granted number of software patents has increased dramatically. And this also make existing problems like vexatious litigation become even worse. In view of that, the U.S. Supreme Court has made a series of software related cases to adjust the loose patent eligibility examination toward a relatively strict way. The importance of patent eligibility has long been overlooked in patent examining procedure or in patent litigations before Bilski. With recent supreme court cases, this patent threshold test has aroused the concern of the whole nation.
According to the statistics from the USPTO, about the performance of the total number of patents granted in America (breakout by country of origin), Taiwan is on top 5. As a consequence, recent changes of patent examination may cause a great impact to Taiwanese companies. As a result, this thesis tries to give a point of view about the trend and development of patent eligibility after studying related cases, series of software patent examination guidelines and literatures. Moreover, this thesis will provide several suggestions for Taiwanese companies, hoping to support them as a reference when confronting strict software patent examining trend nowadays.

關鍵字(中)

★ 電腦
★ 軟體專利
★ 商業方法專利
★ 專利適格性
★ 可專利性

關鍵字(英)

論文目次

目錄
中文摘要 ii
英文摘要…..………………………………………………………………………….iii
誌謝…………………………………………………………………………………....iv
目錄…………………………………………………………………………………....v
圖目錄………………………………………………………………………………..vii
表目錄……………………………………………………………………………….viii
1. 緒論 1
1.1. 研究動機 1
1.2. 研究方法及限制 2
1.3. 研究架構 2
2. 軟體專利概論暨適格性議題的探討 5
2.1. 前言 5
2.1.1. 軟體的定義 7
2.1.2. 軟體專利的定義 8
2.2. 軟體之保護 8
2.2.1. 軟體之營業秘密保護 8
2.2.2. 軟體之著作權保護 10
2.2.3. 軟體之專利權保護 12
3. 美國軟體專利適格性之判決動向─2010前 21
3.1. 前言 21
3.2. Gottschalk v. Benson (1972) 21
3.3. Parker v. Flook (1978) 22
3.4. Freeman-Walter-Abele Test 24
3.4.1. Application of Freeman (1978) 24
3.4.2. Application of Walter (1980) 26
3.4.3. In re Abele (1982) 29
3.5. Diamond v. Diehr (1981) 31
3.6. Arrhythmia Research Technology, Inc. v. Corazonix Corp. (Federal Circuit, 1992) 33
3.7. In re Alappat (1994) 34
3.8. State Street Bank & Trust v. Signature Financial Group (1998) 36
3.9. 綜合討論 38
4. 美國軟體專利適格性之判決動向─2010後 45
4.1. 前言 45
4.2. Bilski v. Kappos (2010) 45
4.3. Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Labs., (2012) 48
4.4. Algorithm Cases 52
4.4.1. Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc. (2012) 53
4.4.2. Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit Inc. (2012) 54
4.5. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern. (2014) 58
4.6. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC (2014) 60
4.7. 綜合討論 62
5. 美國專利適格性審查指南沿革 65
5.1. 前言 65
5.2. Bilski案後USPTO之立場 66
5.2.1. 2009臨時審查指示 66
5.2.2. 2010臨時審查指南 72
5.2.3. Interim Procedure for Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature 77
5.2.4. Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Reciting or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, and Natural Products 80
5.2.5. Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 84
5.2.6. Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility 86
5.2.7. July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility 92
5.2.8. May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility Update 99
5.3. 小結 103
6. 美國專利審查調整之觀察及對我國企業之建議 105
6.1. 法院對適格性檢驗門檻重要性的強調 105
6.2. USPTO對法院意見的摸索 108
6.3. 我國企業面臨適格性審查趨於嚴格之建議 111
6.3.1. 挑戰侵權專利的有效性 112
6.3.2. 精確地表達請求項的文字說明 113
6.3.3. 合理強調發明與裝置間的特殊性 114
6.3.4. 將有關適格性的意見具體反映給USPTO 115
7. 結論 117
參考文獻 121

參考文獻

中文文獻
谷亦洵，商業方法專利適格性之研究，世新大學智慧財產權研究所碩士論文，2011 年6 月。
李界昇，開放原始碼模式下的法律糾紛與風險—從SCO v. IBM案出發，交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2004年7月。
李淑蓮，申請專利範圍解釋十項不成文的實用建議，北美智權報，2016年3月 23日，引自：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/IPNC_160302_0703.htm。
李森堙，從美國Bilski案判決談專利法解釋適用之形式主義與彈性裁量，科技法律透析，第22卷第12期，2010年12月。
洪志勳，軟體專利爭訟案例之分析與制度發展之研究，交通大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2007年7月。
───，美國軟體專利發展回顧及現況分析，科技法律透析，第19卷7期，2007年7月。
柯翔文，由美國CLS v. Alice案探討電腦軟體之專利適格性，台灣科技大學科技管理研究所碩士論文，2014年7月。
范銘祥，電腦程式之智慧財產權保護，智慧財產權月刊，第87期，2006年3月。
袁建中，軟體專利趨勢探討，智慧財產權月刊，第100期，2007年4月。
童厚傑、沈冠毅、林宗緯，軟體專利撰寫建議因應美國最新專利適格性標準，萬國法律，第202期，2015年8月。
曾珮慈，從美國與歐盟法制論電腦軟體與商業方法之可專利性爭議，東華大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，2012年3月。
曾筠淮，論電腦軟體相關發明專利客體之界限：由Mayo案之審查標準出發，清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2013年7月。
經濟部智慧財產局，現行專利審查基準彙編，2014年，引自： http://www.tipo.gov.tw/public/Attachment/47117341987.pdf。
廖學章、吳敏翠，美國引用形式請求項之初探，智慧財產權月刊，第113期，2008年5月。
劉尚志、陳佳麟，《電子商務與電腦軟體之專利保護─發展、分析、創新與策略》，瀚蘆圖書出版，2001年9月。
謝銘洋，《智慧財產權法》，元照出版，2014年8月。
羅明通，《著作權法論第七版（I）》，台英商務法律，2009年9月。
───，《著作權法論第七版（II）》，台英商務法律，2009年9月。
外文文獻
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern., 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
Allison, John R. & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q. J. 185 (1998).
Application of Benson, 441 F. 2d 682 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1971).
Application of Chatfield, 545 F. 2d 152 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1976).
Application of Diehr, 602 F. 2d 982 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1979).
Application of Freeman, 573 F. 2d 1237 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1978).
Application of Walter, 618 F. 2d 758 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1980).
Arrhythmia Research Technology v. Corazonix Corp., 958 F. 2d 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Becker, Gary, On Reforming the Patent System, THE BECKER-POSNER BLOG (July 21, 2013, 02:38 PM), http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2013/07/on-reforming-the-patent-system-becker.html.
Bessen, James & Robert M. Hunt, An Empirical Look at Software Patents (2004).
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
BOLDRIN, MICHELE & DAVID K. LEVINE, AGAINST INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY 235 (Cambridge Univ. Press 1st ed. 2008).
BSA | THE SOFTWARE ALLIANCE – ABOUT BSA, http://ww2.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members.aspx (last visited Mar. 23, 2016).
Burk, Dan L., The Inventive Concept in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 46 INT′L REV. INTELL PROP. & COMPETITION L. 865 (2014).
Burk, Dan L. & Mark A. Lemley, Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?, 17 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1155 (2002).
Burk, Dan L. & Mark A. Lemley, Policy Levers in Patent Law, 89 VA. L. REV. 1575 (2003).
Chien, Colleen V., Reforming Software Patents, 50 HOUS. L. REV. 325 (2012).
Clizer, John, Exploring the Abstract: Patent Eligibility Post Alice Corp v. CLS Bank, 80 MO. L. REV. 537 (2015).
Cohen, Julie E. & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 CALIF. L. REV. 1 (2001).
Davis, Ryan, USPTO Examples Show What Passes Muster Under Alice, LAW 360 (Jan. 27, 2015), www.law360.com/ip/articles/615550/uspto-examples-show-what-passes-muster-under-alice.
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 194-95 (1981).
ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY HISTORY WIKI, http://ethw.org/Software_Industry (last visited Apr. 27, 2016).
Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, TO PROMOTE INNOVATION: THE PROPER BALANCE OF COMPETITION AND PATENT LAW AND POLICY ch. 3 46, 2003, available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reports/promote-innovation-proper-balance-competition-and-patent-law-and-policy/innovationrpt.pdf.
Gemignani, Michael C., Legal Protection for Computer Software: the View from ’79, 7 RUTGERS J. COMPUTERS TECH. L. 269 (1980).
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972).
Haigh, Thomas, Multicians.org and the History of Operating Systems, 1 ITERATIONS: AN INTERDISC. J. OF SOFTWARE HIST. 1 (2002).
Ho, Rodney, Patents Hit Record in ’98 as Tech Firms Rushed to Protect Intellectual Property, WALL ST. J. (Jan. 15, 1999, 12:01 AM), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB916358808304642000.
Hunt, Robert M., You Can Patent That? Are Patents on Computer Programs and Business Methods Good for the New Economy? BUS. REV. Q1 (2001).
IFI Claims Patent Services, 2010 Patent Grants At All-Time High - Up 31 Percent Over 2009 - A Sign That Recession Failed to Slow Patent Flow, http://www.ificlaims.com/index.php?page=news&type=view&id=2010-patent-grants-at (last visited May 31, 2016).
-----, 2011 Top 50 US Patent Assignees, http://www.ificlaims.com/index.php?page=misc_Top_50_2011 (last visited May 31, 2016)
-----, 2012 Top 50 US Patent Assignees, http://www.ificlaims.com/index.php?page=misc_top_50_2012 (last visited May 31, 2016)
In re Abele, 684 F. 2d 902 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1982).
In re Alappat, 33 F. 3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
In re Bilski, 545 F. 3d 943 (Cust. & Pat.App. 2008).
In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43922 (July 27, 2010).
INTERNATIONAL BUREAU OF THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION, MODEL PROVISION ON THE PROTECTION OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE, WIPO Publ’n No. 814(E) (1978) p.9 Section 1(i), ftp://ftp.wipo.int/pub/library/ebooks/wipopublications/wipo_pub_814(e).pdf.
Kasdan, Abraham, Can You Patent Software and Business Methods in the U.S.? How Did We Get Here and Where Do We Now Stand?, 24 FED. CIR. B.J. 649 (2014-2015).
Knapp, Tiffany Marie, Ultramercial III: The Federal Circuit′s Long Lesson, 49 NEW ENG. L. REV. 723 (2015).
Lee, Timothy B., Ctrl-Z: A Return to the Supreme Court’s Software Patent Ban?, ARS TECHNICA (Jan. 28, 2009, 1:24 PM), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2009/01/resurrecting-the-supreme-courts-software-patent-ban-not-ready/3/.
-----, Top Judge: Ditching Software Patents a “Bad Solution”, ARS TECHNICA (May 14, 2012, 3:37 AM), http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/05/top-judge-ditching-software-patents-a-bad-solution/.
Letter from Herbert Wamsley, Exec. Dir., Intell. Prop. Owners Ass’n, to Michelle Lee, Deputy Dir., USPTO (July 31, 2014), available at http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/comments/mm-a-ipo20140731.pdf.
Maier, Gregory J. et al., Patent Protection Provides Long-term Net Strategy, NAT’L L. J., Oct. 18 (1999).
MARKMAN HEARING, http://www.markmanhearing.org/ (last visited Sept. 6, 2015).
Maskin, Eric S., Letter to the Editor, Patents on Software: A Nobel Laureate’s View, N.Y. Times (Oct. 14, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/patents-on-software-a-nobel-laureates-view.html?_r=3&#h.
Mayo Collaborative v. Prometheus Labs., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012).
Nat’l Bureau of Econ. Res., US Business Cycle Expansions and Contractions (2010), available at http://www.nber.org/cycles.html.
NAT’L CONFERENCE OF COMM’RS ON UNIF. STATE LAWS, § 1(4) (1985), http://www.uniformlaws.org/shared/docs/trade%20secrets/utsa_final_85.pdf.
Nazer, Daniel & Vera Ranieri, Bad Day for Bad Patents: Supreme Court Unanimously Strikes Down Abstract Software Patent, ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUND. (June 19, 2014), https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/06/bad-day-bad-patents-supreme-court-unanimously-strikes-down-abstract-software.
Noah Systems, Inc. v. Intuit Inc., 675 F. 3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
Patrick, Mark, The Federal Circuit and Ultramercial: Software and Business Method Patents Tumble Further Down the Rabbit Hole, 64 Am. U. L. Rev. 1089 (2015).
Peske, Nathan, CLS Bank International v. Alice Corp. Pty. at the Federal Circuit: The Dilemma Presented by Computer Implement of Abstract Ideas and How the Supreme Court Missed a Chance to Clear It Up, 16 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 509 (2015).
Pub. L. No. 96-517, § 10 (a), 94 Stat. 3028 (1980), available at http://history.nih.gov/research/downloads/PL96-517.pdf.
Rai, Arti K., Addressing the Patent Gold Rush: The Role of Deference to PTO Patent Denials, 2 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 199 (2000).
RAYMOND, ERIC S., THE CATHEDRAL AND THE BAZAAR: MUSINGS ON LINUX AND OPEN SOURCE BY AN ACCIDENTAL REVOLUTIONARY, 30 (Tim O’Reilly eds., rev. ed. 2001).
Renaud, Michael, Courtney Quish, Sean Casey & Matthew Karambelas, Post-Alice Software Patent Eligibility: What is an Abstract Idea Anyway? | Mintz Levin, MINTZ LEVIN (Jan. 12, 2015), https://www.mintz.com/newsletter/2015/Advisories/4561-0115-NAT-IP/.
Sachs, Robert R., Alicestorm for Halloween: Was It a Trick or a Treat?, BILSKIBLOG (Nov. 6, 2015), http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2015/11/alicestorm-for-halloween-its-scary-out-there-.html.
-----, A Survey of Patent Invalidations Since Alice, LAW 360 (Jan. 13, 2015), www.law360.com/articles/604235/a-survey-of-patent-invalidations-since-alice.
-----, The Day the Exception Swallowed the Rule: Is Any Software Patent Eligible After Ultramercial III?, BILSKIBLOG (Dec. 2, 2014), http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2014/12/the-day-the-exception-swallowed-the-rule-is-any-software-patent-eligible-after-ultramercial-iii.html.
-----, The One Year Anniversary: The Aftermath Of #Alicestorm, BILSKIBLOG (June 20, 2015), http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2015/06/the-one-year-anniversary-the-aftermath-of-alicestorm.html.
SHAPIRO, ROBERT J., THE U.S. INDUSTRY: AN ENGINE FOR ECONOMIC GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT 15 (2014), available at https://www.siia.net/Admin/FileManagement.aspx/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yLPW0SrBfk4%3D&portalid=0.
Snyder, Jesse D.H., Have We Gone Too Far: Does the Seventh Amendment Compel Fact-Finding Before Reaching a Decision on Patent-Eligible Subject Matter?, 14 CHI.-KENT J. INTELL. PROP. 436 (2015).
State Street Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F. 3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Taylor, David O., Formalism and Antiformalism in Patent Law Adjudication: Rules and Standards, 46 CONN. L. REV. 415 (2013).
THE OPEN SOURCE DEFINITION (ANNOTATED) | OPEN SOURCE INITIATIVE, https://opensource.org/osd-annotated, (last visited Mar. 2, 2016).
Thomas, John R., Formalism at the Federal Circuit, 52 AM. L. REV. 771 (2003).
Tokic, Stijepko, The Role of Consumers in Deterring Settlement Agreements Based on Invalid Patents: The Case of Non-Practicing Entities, 2012 STAN. TECH. L. REV. (2012).
Ulam, Stanislaw M., Computers, 211 SCI. AM. (1964).
Ultramercial, Inc. v. HULU, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
U.S. PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance Quick Reference Sheet, (Dec. 2014), http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/2014_eligibility_qrs.pdf.
-----, 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, (Dec. 16, 2014), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-12-16/pdf/2014-29414.pdf.
-----, All Technologies (Utility Patents) Report, http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/all_tech.htm#PartA1_1a (last visited May 25, 2016).
-----, CLASSIFICATION DEFINITIONS, (Jan., 2012), http://www.uspto.gov/web/patents/classification/uspc705/defs705.pdf.
-----, Examinaiton Guidance and Training Materials, http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
-----, Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions, GUIDELINES FOR COMPUTER-RELATED INVENTIONS, (Feb. 16, 1996), http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/con/files/cons093.htm.
-----, Examples: Abstract Ideas, (Jan. 2015), http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/abstract_idea_examples.pdf.
-----, Examples: Nature-Based Products, (Dec. 2014), http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/mdc_examples_nature-based_products.pdf.
-----, Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and Evaluating the Applicant′s Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection, (May 2016), http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-may-2016-memo.pdf.
-----, Guidance For Determining Subject Matter Eligibility Of Claims Reciting Or Involving Laws of Nature, Natural Phenomena, & Natural Products, (Mar. 4, 2014), http://www.uspto.gov/patents/law/exam/myriad-mayo_guidance.pdf.
-----, Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, (July 27, 2010), http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/exam/bilski_guidance_27jul2010.pdf.
-----, Interim Procedure for Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis of Process Claims Involving Laws of Nature, (July 3, 2012), http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/law/exam/2012_interim_guidance.pdf.
-----, July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples, (July 2015), http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-app1.pdf.
-----, July 2015 Update Appendix 2: Index of Eligibility Examples, (July 2015), http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-app2.pdf.
-----, July 2015 Update Appendix 3: Subject Matter Eligibility Court Decisions, (Nov. 2015), http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-app3.pdf.
-----, July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, (July 2015), http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-update.pdf.
-----, New Interim Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Examination Instructions, (Aug. 24, 2009), http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/2009-08-25_interim_101_instructions.pdf.
-----, Past Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance and Training Materials, http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/past-subject-matter-eligibility-guidance-and-training.
-----, Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., (June 25, 2014), http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf.
WHAT IS FREE SOFTWARE? – GNU PROJECT – FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#content (last visited Mar. 2, 2016)
WIPO COPYRIGHT TREATY, Dec. 20, 1996, http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=295166#P56_5626.

指導教授

王明禮

審核日期

2016-7-26

推文