商业方法专利权保护范围的确定和解释

Construction of Claims of Patent for Business Methods in China

问题的提出 1998年美国联邦巡回上诉法院对State Street Bank＆Trust Co.V.Signature Financial Group，Inc。一案的判决开创了商业方法专利保护之先河，使得美国从根本上扫除了商业方法专利保护的障碍。欧盟和日本虽然在专利授权条件上与美国存在或多或少的差异，但是将商业方法纳入专利保护范畴的做法是一致的。尤其值得关注的是，欧洲专利局在实践中推动审查员直接采用新颖性和创造性的方法评价涉及商业方法的专利申请，使得这一类申请更多地被作为一般技术申请来看待。欧洲专利局甚至认为，单独审查保护的主题是不必要的。

Raising of the issue The ruling delivered by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit （the CAFC） in 1998 in the State Street Bank ＆ Trust Co. v. Signature Financial Group, Inc. marks the beginning of the patent protection for business methods, and has removed, once and for all, the barrier to patent protection for business methods in the U.S.. While the requirements for patent grant in the EU and Japan are somewhat differentfrom those in the United States, the practice to bring business methods under the patent protection there is the same as that in the United States. It is particularly noteworthy that the EPO practically encourage its examiners to assess applications for the patent for business method in terms of novelty and inventiveness, which makes it more likely for such applications to be treated as those relating to the ordinary technologies. The EPO even considers it unnecessary to separately examine the claimed subject matter？