|Abstract: ||專利申請書應有兩重要部分，為說明書與申請專利範圍。後者決定專利權範圍，前 者是為了確定發明人發明內容已充分揭露給公眾，以換取國家賦予專利權之對價。 惟說明書內容應揭露至何種程度才算充分揭露?美國聯邦專利法第112 條第1 項規 定了據以實施要件(Enablement)、書面說明要件(Written Description)及最佳實施例(Best Mode)等三要件。據以實施要件為，說明書應將使用及製造之方法或步驟，以完整、清 晰、精簡、明確之用語，使該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者亦能製造和使用。書 面說明要件乃由美國司法實務所創設，其適用在所有技術領域中，說明書與申請專利範 圍內之元件相比，申請專利範圍之元件在說明書漏未描述者，即可能違反該要件，而被 判決專利權無效。 今年8 月21 日，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院接受申請人ARIAD公司的聯席審理(En Banc Rehearing)之要求，針對美國聯邦專利法有關於書面說明要件的法律問題，美國聯邦巡 迴上訴法院認為有兩點必須釐清：一、書面說明是否獨立於據以實施要件為獨立要件? 二、如果書面說明是獨立要件，那其適用範圍及目的為何1? 反觀我國專利法及司法實務，並未區分書面說明與據以實施要件，僅以第26 條第2 項統稱充分揭露要件，而實務運作亦偏向美國據以實施要件。因此本計劃擬研究是否國 內在說明書揭露義務增加「書面說明要件」，使說明書所達到之功能更為完善，以提昇 說明書之品質並利於我國專利制度運作更細膩完整。|
Patent application comprise with two important parts, the patent specification and claims. Claims determine the scope of the patent and specification is to ensure that the inventor has fully disclosed his/her invention, in the exchange of exclusivity granted by the country. The questions of specification requirement arise to what extent of the invention details must be disclosed in the patent specification, to satisfy the standard of fully disclosure? The answers lay in 35 U.S.C § 112, Paragraph 1: “The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.”, which established the elements requires in a patent specification Enablement, Written Description and Best Mode. In the En Banc decision made by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 21 Aug 2009. The court admitted appellate ARIAD’s petition, in seeking the interpretation of the legal issues regarding with the requirements of patent specification. The court felt the necessity to clarify two aspects: a. Whether 35 U.S.C. § 112, paragraph 1, contain a written description requirement separate from an enablement requirement? b. If a separate written description requirement is set forth in the statute, what is the scope and purpose of the requirement? In turns of our own patent act and judicial practice, there are no distinction difference made between specification and enablement requirement, although according to article 26 section 2 of the patent act, it requires the patent applicant to fully disclose his/her invention, but the actual practice and interpretation of such requirement is leaned toward enablement requirement of the U.S. Therefore this research intends to discuss the possibility of perfecting of our patent system, by adding the “Written Description” requirement in patent specification rule.