当有条件符合而完成步骤，就以此为最广专利范围，此案例讨论最广且合理专利范围解释的条件，在方法专利中，当有步骤止于某个条件符合时，此为该项权利要求的最广范围，涉及“BRI”讨论 - Ex parte Schulhauser (PTAB 2013-007847) 几天前PTAB指定一个判决先例（precedential），此案关系解释专利范围时使用最广且合理解释原则（BRI）的条件，面对方法请求项中判断式的描述方式，仅一个条件符合就以BRI原则解释专利范围 - Ex parte Schulhauser， Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28， 2016)。Ex parte Schulhauser资讯：诉愿编号：Appeal2013-007847申请号：12/184，020缘起系争案在USPTO审查阶段遭遇Final Rejection (09-14-2012)后提出诉愿，诉愿中PTAB的APJ 提出新的证据或新的审查意见（此例是引入BRI解释的审查意见），依照规定，这样让申请人决定是否修正专利范围或是请求复审，不能直接作为最终决定。此为根据37C.F.R.41.50(b)给予申请人/上诉人新的机会回应新的核驳意见的规定，这时，申请人可以修正专利范围与答辩；或是请求复审（rehearing），以指出APJ错误或误判。系争专利关于使用最低限度入侵式移植装置以侦测心脏等生理问题的医疗装置，请求项1界定使用移植装置感测心脏问题的方法，方法包括收集生理资料、比对、警报、判断事件水平、判断是否低于门槛、比对组织资料与发出警报等。 1. A method for monitoring of cardiac conditions incorporating an implantable medical devicein a subject， the method comprising the steps of:collecting physiological dataassociated with the subject from the implantable device at preset time intervals， wherein the collected data includes real-time electrocardiac signal data， heart sound data， activity level data and tissue perfusion data; comparing the electrocardiac signal datawith a threshold electrocardiac criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event;triggering an alarm stateif the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria;determining the current activity level of the subject from the activity level data if the electrocardiac signal data is within the threshold electrocardiac criteria;determining whether the current activity level is below a threshold activity level;comparing the tissue perfusion data with a threshold tissue perfusion criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event if the current activity level is determined to be below a threshold activity level;triggering an alarm stateif the threshold tissue perfusion data is not within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria; andtriggering an alarm state ifthe threshold tissue perfusion data is within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria and the heart sound data indicates that S3 and S4 heart sounds are detected，wherein if an alarm state is not triggered， the physiological data associated with the subject is collected at the expiration of the preset time interval.面对USPTO最终审查意见（依据103规定认为系争案请求项1-10为显而易见），申请人提出上诉。引证案： 面对根据美国专利法第103条作出的核驳意见，申请人常见就是逐一比对先前技术后，认为引证案之个别或是组合并未揭示或是教示系争案请求项发明，如本案为方法请求项的步骤，但理由都不被接受。案件进入PTAB，APJ不同意申请人答辩意见，产生本次讨论议题“Broadest Reasonable Interpretation， BRI”（'these arguments are not persuasive because they are not commensurate with the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1'）。本案在PTAB审理中，APJ以符合说明书内容的BRI原则解释专利范围，虽申请人不服，对此，PTAB的理由是，在审查过程中使用BRI并没有不公平，因为申请人仍有机会修正专利范围，使得有适当的限缩；另一理由是，如果专利权人拿着这份专利权去主张侵权告诉，仍会以最广而合理的解释原则来解释专利范围，因此此时用BRI来检验专利范围应为合理的解释。'Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant ... because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claimsto obtain more precise claim coverage.''A proper interpretation of claim language， under the broadest reasonable interpretationof a claim during prosecution， must construe the claim language in a way that at least encompasses thebroadest interpretation of the claim language for purposes of infringement.'仔细看上述Claim 1内容，许多步骤是有条件的，如'if'之后的条件成立，才会执行相关步骤，这也常见于方法流程的专利中。其中，讨论到专利范围中'triggering...'与'determining...“两个步骤在“comparing...“步骤之后，因此有可能在条件不符下不用执行triggering或determining步骤，甚至这两个步骤是互相排斥的，如果在之前comparing步骤条件不符时，不会去triggering任何警报（有危险时），其余步骤也不用执行了！反之，如果'if'之后的条件符合，才执行determining相关步骤以及之后的步骤。 这样的专利范围确实会有解释上的困难，到底有没有涵盖'if'条件不符的情况的步骤？在PTAB解释中，这样的专利范围包含了（至少）两个方法，在此案中，符合某个条件，就要执行'triggering...'步骤，如果符合另一条件，就要执行'determining...'步骤。意见如下摘录，看来经过PTAB裁定，BRI解释后，专利范围即'去芜存菁'，其实是找到第一个符合某个判断的条件的步骤，以此得到专利范围解释时会是最广的几个步骤，其他有例外或排斥情况的就被排除。 就考虑将来主张侵权时仍可能会以BRI解释专利范围，因此这里采用BRI解释原则为合理，也就是仅以两种可能下（triggering， determining）第一个满足条件而执行的动作/功能特征来查验，根据这些步骤来判断是否显而易见。因此PTAB的APJ同意USPTO审查时作出系争案请求项发明不可专利的意见。其余系争请求项的答辩理由也都不被接受。根据Claim 1的几个判断步骤，第一个'if'出现在'triggering an alarm state'步骤中，也就是当'if'后的条件符合，及执行triggering，后续步骤将不继续进行，这样，就在BRI原则下，认定系争案的专利范围中最广的范围就到第一次出现的'triggering...'为止。当以最广方式解释Claim 1时，步骤仅前三个动作collecting， comparing， and triggering，判断显而易见性时，也就以此范围为审查对象，PTAB判定在此最广范围下，系争案请求项1发明为显而易见。由于PTAB的部分审查意见不同于USPTO审查意见，特别是解释专利的方式，产生New Ground of Rejection，依照规定，仍提供申请人修正专利范围的机会，但结论仍是系争案请求项1（方法）不可专利，结论与USPTO一致，只是审查意见不同。 对于系争案Claim 11，是系统范围，APJ以一贯于Claim 1的态度来看Claim 11，但是却不同于Claim 1所界定的方法步骤，也没有当有一个条件符合才执行某动作的情况，因此APJ指出系统方法中的结构特征（'structure'）执行了几个步骤（功能），相对于有判断条件的方法范围，范围较小，因此还指出了USPTO审查委员的两点错误（没有定义出发明中有限度数量的设置、错误引用前案），认为先前技术的组合并未涵盖系统中为了取得心电资料的功能顺序。因此PTAB否决专利局对Claim 11的核驳意见。“the broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function， which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met， still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.”诉愿决定：确认Claims 1-10显而易见（103(a)）。驳回Claim 11不具专利性的决定。解释专利范围时，PTAB与USPTO审查委员不同，产生'NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION'，因此给予申请人答辩与修正系争案请求项的机会。诉愿决定后答辩与修正（给予发明人修改权利范围的机会与期限）：根据PAIR资料，申请人于04-28-2016做出诉愿决定后，依照规定于06-28-2016提出修正，还新增了专利范围，目的就是能避免以上BRI解释时排除部分步骤的问题，并能有效与先前技术区隔，克服103显而易见的审查意见。这是申请人答辩内容，这里提到修正后Claim 1已经删除comparing步骤后的triggering动作，仅执行了在心电资料门槛内的determining步骤，使得请求项1的方法顺序执行步骤determining...，in response to the electrocardiac signal data being within the threshold electrocardiac criteria， performing...等，与PTAB以BRI原则解释专利范围已经不同，同理也发生在新增范围中，以triggering...步骤为限制。先前技术的组合已经无法教示修正后与新增请求项发明。 最后，经与先前技术比对这些步骤后，系争案请求项范围判定为可核准专利。修正：因应新的审查意见，Claim 1修改后： 修正与新增范围分别主要描述determining与triggering的步骤：修正时，Claim 1修改了以上所述因为'if'先決要件需要符合才执行triggering步骤的问题。新增范围则是针对triggering步骤來描述，这样可以避免BRI解释上排除排斥的步骤而落于先前技术的组合中的问题。 新增范围摘录： [相关法规]35 U.S.C. 134 APPEAL TO THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD?? (a) PATENT APPLICANT.— An applicant for a patent， any of whose claims has been twice rejected， may appeal from the decision of the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board， having once paid the fee for such appeal.?? (b) PATENT OWNER.— A patent owner in a reexamination may appeal from the final rejection of any claim by the primary examiner to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board， having once paid the fee for such appeal.37 C.F.R. 41.50 DECISIONS AND OTHER ACTIONS BY THE BOARD(b) New ground of rejection. Should the Board have knowledge of any grounds not involved in the appeal for rejecting any pending claim， it may include in its opinion a statement to that effect with its reasons for so holding， and designate such a statement as a new ground of rejection of the claim. A new ground of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review. When the Board enters such a non-final decision， the appellant， within two months from the date of the decision， must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:?? (1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected， or both， and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner， in which event the prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. The new ground of rejection is binding upon the examiner unless an amendment or new Evidence not previously of Record is made which， in the opinion of the examiner， overcomes the new ground of rejection designated in the decision. Should the examiner reject the claims， appellant may again appeal to the Board pursuant to this subpart.?? (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is sought.my two cents:这是一个很好学习的功课。撰写方法专利范围时，若有判断式，可以在一个发明概念下用不同的独立请求项分别界定不同的步骤流程，否则，就仅针对发明核心的流程描述，舍弃判断动作（除非判断本身很重要，这应该是另一个情况），其他便视为例外或是一般习知技术而已。看来，至少进入PTAB时，当“方法专利”中请求项描述的步骤有“if， else， whether or not”等判断式时，审查单位会得出其中条件符合执行的步骤，进而判断出一个进行102， 103审查的最广与合理的专利范围，如此例，审查单位就一步步检验，一旦步骤打住，就是完成方法。对此，也可学习本案申请人的做法，根据PTAB意见修正专利范围，使得专利请求项步骤不会因为某个步骤停止而就以此为最广的范围。'Thus， the broadest reasonable interpretation encompasses a method where only the steps of'collectingphysiological data associated with the subject from the implantable device at preset time intervals， wherein the collected data includes real-time electrocardiac signal data， heart sound data， activity level data and tissue perfusion data，''comparing the electrocardiac signal data with a threshold electrocardiac criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event，' and'triggeringan alarm state if the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria' are performed. '之后的步骤就被停住了，因为仅一个条件符合就完成此方法步骤，APJ就以这些步骤来审查其专利性。原来进入诉愿时的Claim 1，底线是被萃取出审查103的步骤：(updated on Oct. 12， 2016)1. A method for monitoring of cardiac conditions incorporating an implantable medical device in a subject， the method comprising the steps of:collecting physiological data associated with the subject from the implantable device at preset time intervals， wherein the collected data includes real-time electrocardiac signal data， heart sound data， activity level data and tissue perfusion data;comparing the electrocardiac signal data with a threshold electrocardiac criteria for indicating a strong likelihood of a cardiac event;triggering an alarm stateifthe electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria; (修正后此步骤被删除，而保留在新增请求项中）。。。最高法院同意IPR程序中采用BRI原则-Cuozzo v. Lee：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/06/iprbri-cuozzo-v-lee.htmlPTAB裁決：https://app.box.com/s/ushzagxn6luwjx2z3blqeww7h81ru2k2系爭案審查到訴願歷史資料：https://app.box.com/s/jnh67r34f03lt8b5516bm8fxfie1rmdqRon