英國申請專利範圍撰寫上的限制
曾遇到一個英國審查意見：
該案有三個獨立項，審查委員認定其中兩個獨立範圍有重疊的範圍，此點審查委員引用英國專利守則（code of practice）與CIPA的指南：即便在一個發明概念之下，專利不能以多個獨立範圍表達同一技術：
The claims as filed should not, where in might have been avoided, contain multiple independent claims in any one category, even if only one inventive concept is present.
在此專利守則，包括英國專利實務手冊（manual of patent practice）中對於權利範圍撰寫的規範包括：
- 權利範圍應包括一個界定發明必要技術特徵與概念的獨立項
- 獨立項不得包括非必要或是選擇性的特徵，比如preferably, for example, more particularly等用語
- 獨立項應揭露各技術特徵間關聯、運作與使用足夠的細節，以能據以實施
- 附屬項包括其他的特徵，解釋上應併入所有獨立項所界定的內容
- 多個獨立項之間所包括的概念應包括超過一個技術分類，否則不得用多個獨立項界定同一分類，比如裝置、使用、流程、物品
因此，權利範圍不得包括： - 多個無關的發明（不符單一性）
- 即便在一個發明概念下，不得有多個同一分類的獨立項
- 不合理的數量與錯綜複雜的權利範圍
- 選擇性太多的範圍
- 無法進一步限定所依附範圍的附屬項，比如用省略的、修改的、替換的特徵
[原文]
The claims as filed should be structured to have:
a One independent claim defining all the technical features essential to the invention or inventive concept. Inessential or optional features should not be included in this claim; consequently terms such as “preferably”, “for example”, or “more particularly” should not be included, as the feature being introduced by such terms does not restrict the scope of the claim in any way. The independent claim should include sufficient details of interrelationship, operation or utility of the essential features to enable the scope of the claim to be determined (see 14.110.1); and
b Dependent claims incorporating all the features of the independent claim and characterised by additional non-essential features (see 14.134).
In addition:
c Further independent claims are only justified where the inventive concept covers more than one category, e.g. apparatus, use, process, product (see 14.165 to 14.168), complementary versions within one category, e.g. plug and socket, transmitter and receiver, which work only together (see 14.161), or distinct medical uses of a substance or composition (see 14.162).
Therefore claims as filed should not, where it might have been avoided, contain:
d Multiple unrelated inventions that would clearly give rise to a plurality objection (see 14.157.1).
e Multiple independent claims in any one category, even if only one inventive concept is present (see 14.110.1 and 14.140).
f Claims of a total number or complexity not justified by the nature of the invention (see 14.110.1 and 14.140).
g Claims which are in principle unsearchable by reason of the number of alternatives embraced, or the choice of characterising parameters or desiderata (see 14.110 and 14.133).
h Dependent claims that are not fully limited by the terms of the preceding independent claim, e.g. dependent claims which omit, modify or substitute a feature of an independent claim (see 14.134).
Ron
