材料科学新闻简报 - 2022 年 5 月

材料科学新闻简报 2022 年 5 月

1

www.hlk-ip.cn

什么时候“大于零度”的倾角 实际上并非“大于零度”？ EPO 技术上诉委员会最近审议了一个 关于材料成分参数定义的案件，并作 出了一项决定。乍一看，这项决定令 人十分不解。但是，该案凸显出了一 个重要问题，这是一个在起草欧洲专 利申请时应当考虑的问题，无论起草 的是何种技术领域的专利申请。 原始申请 在第 EP07017348 号欧洲专利申请中， 申请人 SUMCO Corporation 主张了一 种外延硅片；它的一个关键特征是一 个特殊晶面的倾角，按照指定的晶向 和主晶面进行测量，“大于零度...”。

When is an angle of “more than zero degrees” not actually “more than zero degrees”?

An EPO Technical Board of Appeal recently considered a case concerning a parametric definition of a material component and returned a decision which, at first glance, might raise some eyebrows. This case, however, highlights an important issue which should be taken into account when drafting patent applications destined for Europe, regardless of the technical field.

The original application In European Patent Application EP07017348, applicant SUMCO Corporation had claimed an epitaxial silicon wafer; a key feature of which was that the inclination angle of a particular crystallographic plane was, as measured from a specified crystallographic orientation and with respect to the main surface of the wafer, “more than zero degrees…”.

Figure 1 of EP07017348 illustrating inclination angles ξ, φ and ψ.

EP07017348 图 1 显示了倾角 ξ、φ 和 ψ。

在最初审查程序期间，审查部门援引了 一份现有技术文件，该文件公开了一种 外延硅片，这种外延硅片的相同晶面的 倾角，按照相同的晶向和主晶面进行测 量，“等于零度”。

2

During the original examination procedure, the Examining Division cited a prior art document which discloses an epitaxial silicon wafer having, as measured from the same crystallographic orientation and with respect to the main surface, an inclination angle of the same crystallographic plane being “equal to zero degrees”.

www.hlk-ip.cn

申请人在答复时辩称，与倾角“等于零 度”相比，倾角“大于零度”具备新颖 性。此外，申请人还提出，根据现有技 术，倾角等于零度时，外延硅片有时并 不能表现出电子器件所需的特性。申 请人进一步提出，倾角大于零度时，表 面粗糙度和雾度的影响降低，晶片的载 体流动特性有所改善。因此，申请人辩 称，倾角等于零度和倾角大于零度存在 本质上的差异。 但是，审查部门并不认同这一观点，并 以缺乏新颖性和人们认为倾角“等于零 度”预示着倾角“大于零度”为由驳回 了申请。 上诉 上诉后，委员会作出 T 0386/17 判决， 维持审查部门以缺乏新颖性为由驳回申 请的判决，并进一步解释了驳回原因。 上诉委员会援引了先前的一项判决 T 594/01，该项判决称，所有专利信息都 是面向相关技术人员披露的，他们能够 意识到“在任何实验室或工业操作中， 都不可能无限精准地进行角度测量或方 向对齐，这类操作永远都会存在小误 差，但误差有限。” 委员会还称： “申请主张的倾角‘大于 0 度’这一特 征，相对于现有技术披露的对应倾角等 于 0 度，并不具备新颖性，因为该特征 包含的值更接近 0 度，而非确定倾角大 小时始终存在的有限误差幅度，并且在 实践中根本无法区分这些值与0 度。”

In response, the applicant argued that an angle being “more than zero degrees” is novel over an angle being “equal to zero degrees”. In addition, the applicant submitted that, when the inclination angle was equal to zero degrees according to the prior art, the epitaxial silicon wafer sometimes did not exhibit desirable characteristics for an electronic device. The applicant further submitted that, when the inclination angle was more than zero degrees, the carrier flow characteristics of the wafer were improved due to reduced effects of surface roughness and haze. Accordingly, the applicant argued that there is a difference in substance between an angle being equal to zero degrees and an angle being more than zero degrees.

However, the Examining Division disagreed and refused the application due to a lack of novelty; an angle “equal to zero degrees” was considered to anticipate an angle “more than zero degrees”.

The appeal Upon appeal, in T 0386/17, the Board maintained the Examining Division’s refusal of the application owing to a lack of novelty, and provided further explanation for the refusal.

The Board of Appeal cited previous decision T 594/01, stating that all patent disclosures are directed to the relevant skilled person, who would be aware that “in any laboratory or industrial operation, it is impossible to measure an angle or align a direction with infinite accuracy, and such operations will always be subject to a small but finite error.”

The Board continued: “A claimed feature that an angle has a magnitude of ‘more than 0 degrees’ does not establish novelty over a prior art disclosure in which the corresponding angle is equal to 0 degrees, since the feature encompasses values closer to 0 degrees than the finite error margin to which the determination of the magnitude of the angle would always be subject, and such values would, in practice, be indistinguishable from 0 degrees.”

3

www.hlk-ip.cn

因此，从技术人员的实用角度来看， 对现有技术文件的公开内容和专利权 利要求范围作出解释时，必须考虑确 定倾角时的误差幅度。因此，从技术 人员的角度来看，详述倾角“大于零 度”的权利要求与详述倾角“等于零 度”的权利要求是无法区分的。因 此，本文标题提出的问题的答案是， 测量的误差幅度存在重叠时，大于零 度的倾角实际上并非大于零度。 讨论 虽然判决 T 0368/17 针对的是详述一 种硅片中一个特殊晶面的一个倾角的 权利要求，但它考量的原理可以普 遍应用于实验测量值和实验测量范 围。该项判决看起来也与早期判决 T 594/01 一致。判决 T 594/01 认为， 亚烷基二醇的生产方法公开的二氧化 碳实验测量值为 0.1 wt. % 预示着主张 使用低于 0.1 wt. % 的二氧化碳进行生 产。 EPO 对小数位和四舍五入数值的

解释方式可能会引发类似问题。例 如，EPO 审查指南对解释专利文件中 可通过实验测定的数值时误差幅度的 应用情况进行了说明。特别是，G 部 分第六章第 8.1 条称，由于技术人员 知晓，通过测量得到的数值会存在测 量误差，而这些误差会限制测量值的 准确性，所以，如果文件未提供其他 误差幅度，EPO 在解释测量值时会适 用最后一个小数位四舍五入的惯例（ 例如，“3.5 cm”解释为包含“3.45 cm - 3.54 cm”）。此外，委员会在 判决 T871/08 中表示，比较通过现有 技术得到的值（例如，值 “2.996” ）与主张的值（例如，值在“3:1 到 9:1”范围内）时，现有技术值的准 确度必须与主张的值相同。在此情况 下，权利要求引证的值要确保逗号后 面没有任何数字，也就是说，为了便 于比较，值 2.996 必须四舍五入为 3 ，3 在主张值的范围内。另一项判决 T 708/05 认为，根据现有技术确定的 聚合物层的厚度为 0.96 µm 预示着四 舍五入后主张的厚度在 1 µm 到 5 µm 范围内。 实践要点 4

判决 T 0368/17 提出的潜在问题不仅

Accordingly, when viewed from the practical standpoint of the skilled person, the margin of error when determining an angle must be taken into account when interpreting the disclosure of a prior art document and the scope of a patent claim. A claim reciting an angle “more than zero degrees” is therefore indistinguishable from an angle being “equal to zero degrees” when viewed through the eyes of the skilled person.

As such, in answer to the title of this article, an angle of more than zero degrees is not actually more than zero degrees when the margins of error of such measurements would overlap.

Discussion Although decision T 0368/17 relates specifically to a claim reciting an inclination angle of a particular crystallographic plane in a silicon wafer, the principle considered could be applied to experimentally measured values and ranges more generally. This decision also appears to be consistent with earlier decision T 594/01.

In T 594/01, a disclosure of an experimental measurement of 0.1 wt. % carbon dioxide in a method for producing alkylene glycols was considered to anticipate a claim to the process being performed with less than 0.1 wt. % carbon dioxide.

Similar issues can arise due to the way the EPO interprets decimal places and rounds numerical values. For example, the Guidelines for Examination at the EPO discuss the application of error margins when interpreting experimentally measurable numerical values in patent documents. In particular, according to section G-VI, 8.1, since the skilled person knows that numerical values relating to measurements are subject to measurement errors which place limits on their accuracy, where no other error margins are given in a document, the EPO interprets numerical values by applying the rounding-off convention to the last decimal place (e.g., such that “3.5 cm” is interpreted as encompassing “3.45 cm to 3.54 cm”). Moreover, in decision T871/08, the Board stated that, when comparing a value from the state of the art (e.g., the value "2.996") with those claimed (e.g., the range of values "from 3:1 to 9:1"), the state of the art value had to be given the same accuracy as the one claimed. In that case, the values in the claims had been quoted without

www.hlk-ip.cn

any digit after the comma, which meant that for comparison purposes, the value 2.996 had to be rounded up to 3, which thus fell into the range of the claimed values. In another decision, T 708/05, a thickness of a polymer layer determined from the prior art to be 0.96 µm was considered to anticipate a claim to a thickness range of from 1 µm to 5 µm following rounding.

Practice point

会涉及到根据参数定义材料成分的申 请，而且在使用可通过实验测定的值来 限定某一权利要求的情况下也会出现。 因此，在起草和修改详述数值的权利要 求时，有必要充分考虑误差幅度的影 响。尤其是在起草申请时，应注意为数 字范围的端点建立多个备选位置，用于 在欧洲诉讼期间依次缩小范围，从而避 免现有技术预示测量值接近最初公开的 范围。

The potential issue raised in T 0368/17 is not just relevant to applications in which material components are defined in terms of their parameters, but could crop up in any case where experimentally measurable values are used to limit a claim. It is therefore important when drafting and amending claims reciting numerical values that the effects of any error margins are fully considered. When drafting applications, in particular, care should be taken to build in multiple fallback positions for endpoints of numerical ranges which could be used during prosecution in Europe to narrow ranges sequentially to avoid anticipation by prior art values lying close to the originally disclosed ranges.

EPO 的合金专利申请：新颖性

Patenting Alloys at the EPO: Novelty

考虑到这些重要工业材料的独特性质， 欧洲专利局制定了一套统一的方法来审 查与合金有关的专利申请。 我们的 第一篇 EPO 合金专利申请文章 重点介绍了明确性。本文介绍了 EPO 在 新颖性方面的审批实践。 新颖性 EPO 对新颖性的评估十分严格：如果现 有技术直接且明确公开过某项权利要求 的所有特征，那么该项权利要求缺乏新 颖性。要使某项权利要求缺乏新颖性， 则须现有技术直接且明确公开过该项权 利要求的所有特征。但是，直接且明确 公开的含义在某种程度上可能取决于相 关文件的技术背景。评估合金权利要求 的新颖性时，需要牢记一些特别的注意 事项。 5

The European Patent Office has developed a consistent approach to the examination of patent applications relating to alloys, taking into consideration the unique nature of these important industrial materials.

Our first article on patenting alloys at the EPO focused on clarity. In this article, we consider the EPO’s practice as regards novelty.

Novelty The EPO’s approach to the assessment of novelty is strict: all of the features of a claim must be directly and unambiguously disclosed in the prior art for the claim to lack novelty.

The meaning of directly and unambiguously disclosed, however, can depend to some extent on the technical context of the documents in question. When assessing the novelty of

www.hlk-ip.cn

组成重叠 合金的权利要求通常会根据合金中每种 元素的含量来定义化学组成，如下文的 简化示例所示。

alloy claims, there are some particular considerations to bear in mind.

Compositional overlap

1. 合金包含 5 wt. % - 10 wt. % 的 A，3 wt. % - 7 wt. % 的 B，余量为 C 和常见杂

质。

An alloy claim will typically define a chemical composition in terms of the amounts of each element present in the alloy, as in the following simplified example.

要想破坏该项权利要求的新颖性，现有 技术文献必须公开一种组成落入上述范 围内的合金。

1. Alloy comprising from 5 wt. % to 10 wt. % A and from 3 wt. % to 7 wt. % B, the balance being C and the usual impurities.

现有技术文件，特别是专利文件，通常 会以两种不同的方式公开合金组成：

For a prior art document to destroy the novelty of this claim, it must disclose an alloy having a composition falling within these ranges.

•

•

提供具体示例合金的精确组成，作为 主张发明可以实施并达到预期技术效 果的证据；以及 由各类元素的给定上下端点定义的一 般范围。

具体示例 如果只考虑具体示例的公开情况，那么 新颖性的评估相对来说会简单一些。如 果其中一个示例的组成完全落入主张 范围内，则该权利要求缺乏新颖性。例 如，相对于由 7 wt. % 的 A 和 3.5 wt. % 的 B 组成且余量为 C 的现有技术合金示 例，上述权利要求 1 将缺乏新颖性。 但是，如果现有技术示例的任一成分 A、B 或 C 的含量有所不同，或者其组成 包含任何超出杂质水平的其他元素（因 为主张的合金组成具有封闭性，我们在 关于明确性的文章中讨论过这一点）， 则权利要求 1 将不缺乏新颖性。

Prior art documents, particularly patent documents, will typically disclose alloy compositions in two different ways: •

precise compositions of specific example alloys provided as evidence that the claimed invention can be put into practice and achieves the desired technical effect; and

•

general ranges defined by lower and upper endpoints given for each element.

Specific examples The assessment of novelty is relatively straightforward when considering only disclosures of the specific examples. If one of the examples has a composition falling entirely within the claimed ranges, the claim lacks novelty. For example, claim 1 above would lack novelty over a prior art example alloy consisting of 7 wt. % A and 3.5 wt. % B, the balance being C. However, claim 1 would not lack novelty if the composition of the prior art example were to differ in terms of the amount of any of A, B or C, or if the composition were to include any further elements beyond impurity levels (because claimed alloy compositions are considered to be closed, as discussed in our article on clarity).

For example, claim 1 would be novel over an example alloy consisting of 7 wt. A and 2 wt.

6

www.hlk-ip.cn

例如，相对于由 7 wt. % 的 A 和 2 wt. % 的 B 组成且余量为 C 的合金示例，权利 要求 1 将具有新颖性。相对于由 7 wt. % 的 A、3.5 wt. % 的 B 和 1 wt. % 的 D 组 成且余量为 C 的合金示例，权利要求 1 也将具有新颖性。 范围 但是，如果定义现有技术的公开情况时 依据的是各类元素的含量范围，情况就 会变复杂。

% B, the balance being C. It would also be novel over an example alloy consisting of 7 wt. A, 3.5 wt. % B and 1 wt. % D, the balance being C. Ranges The situation, however, becomes more complicated when the prior art disclosure is defined in terms of ranges for each element present.

如果现有技术公开的各项范围落入对应 的主张范围内，则该项权利要求缺乏新 颖性。下文形象地说明了这一点。

If each of the ranges disclosed in the prior art falls within the corresponding claimed ranges, the claim lacks novelty. This is illustrated figuratively below.

现有技术

Prior Art

现有技术

权利要求

但是，如果一个或多个现有技术范围比 对应的主张范围广或者现有技术范围仅 与对应的主张范围存在部分重叠，如下 所示，会怎样呢?

However, what happens if one or more of the prior art ranges are broader than, or only partially overlap with, the corresponding claimed ranges, as shown below?

现有技术

权利要求

在这种情况下，EPO 会应用审查指南 （G 部分第六章第 8 条）中有关选择 发明的规定。根据该等规定，如满足 以下条件，可视为从现有技术的较广 范围内选定的子范围具有新颖性： •

7

与已知范围相比，所选的子范围更 窄；以及

In such cases, the EPO applies the rules relating to selection inventions set out in the Guidelines for Examination (Part G, VI-8). According to these rules, a sub-range selected from a broader range in the prior art is considered to be novel if: •

the selected sub-range is narrow compared to the known range; and

www.hlk-ip.cn

•

所选的子范围距现有技术中的任 何具体示例和已知范围的端点足 够远。

当然，如果一个范围与另一个范围存 在部分重叠，不能视为主张的范围距 已知范围的端点很远 - 按照定义，已 知范围的端点之一会落入重叠的主张 范围内。因此，如果组成中的某种元 素的范围仅存在部分重叠，并且主张 的合金与现有技术公开的合金之间没 有其他差异，EPO 审查员会以现有技 术公开的端点是明确公开的落入主张 范围的值为由认定权利要求不具备新 颖性。 但是，判例法还要求审查员考虑技术 人员是否会认真考虑在任何重叠领域 应用现有技术的技术教示。例如，上 诉委员会在针对由组成定义的珠光体 钢轨（该钢轨的组成与现有技术存在 多个成分的重叠）专利作出的判决 T 0261/15 中裁定，虽然已知范围的极限 值已被明确公开，但在评估新颖性时 仍然不应按照示例的新颖性评估方式 进行处理。虽然示例公开的是技术人 员会认真考虑实施的组成信息，但技 术人员不一定会“认真考虑”在一般 范围的端点区域进行实施。 由于合金较为特殊，技术人员还知 晓，不同的合金元素会以不可预知的 方式发生相互作用，从而产生沉淀物 和固溶体，因此技术人员不会随意 改变合金的组成。因此，根据判决 T 0261/15, 不应单独考虑现有技术公开 的浓度范围，必须对此进行综合考 虑。此外，如果一种合金的多种元素 含量存在重叠，那么权利要求与现有 技术之间的总概念重叠区域很可能会 比较窄。 上诉委员会还针对一项镍基高温合金 专利作出过一项判决（T 1571/15）， 该专利由化学组成进行定义，这种化 学组成与现有技术文件中多种成分的 最大范围存在重叠。实际上，该项专 利权利要求甚至涵盖了现有技术公开 的钛的最大范围的中间值。但是，现 有技术还公开了与该项权利要求不重 叠的优选组成范围，以及完全落入优 选范围的示例性组成。因此，委员会 8

•

the selected sub-range is sufficiently far removed from any specific examples in the prior art and from the end-points of the known range.

Of course, where one range partially overlaps another, the claimed range cannot be considered to be far removed from the endpoints of the known range – by definition, one of the end-points of the known range will fall within the overlapping claimed range. Therefore, if there is only partial overlap in the ranges of one of the elements in the composition, and there are no other differences between the claimed alloy and the prior art disclosure, an EPO examiner can object that the disclosed endpoint in the prior art is an explicitly disclosed value falling within the claimed range and therefore takes away the novelty of the claim.

However, the case law also requires examiners to take into account whether the skilled person would seriously contemplate applying the technical teaching of the prior art in any area of overlap. In Board of Appeal decision T 0261/15, for example, which concerned a patent for a pearlitic steel rail defined by a composition which overlapped with the prior art in terms of multiple components, it was decided that the limit values of a known range, although explicitly disclosed, should not be treated in the same way as the examples when assessing novelty. While the examples are disclosures of compositions which the skilled person would seriously contemplate implementing, the skilled person would not necessarily “seriously contemplate” working in the region of the end-points of general ranges.

In the particular context of alloys, the skilled person also knows that different alloying elements can interact with one another in an unpredictable way to produce precipitates and solid solutions, and so the skilled person does not make arbitrary compositional changes.

Therefore, following T 0261/15, concentration ranges disclosed in the prior art should not be considered in isolation but must instead be viewed in combination. In addition, where there is overlap in terms of the amounts of more than one element in an alloy, the total conceptual area of overlap between the claims and the prior art is likely to be narrow.

www.hlk-ip.cn

认为现有技术暗示在优选范围内实施， 而非在与审议权利要求重叠的较广范围 内实施，因此，技术人员不会认真考虑 在重叠区域内实施（即便权利要求涵盖 最大范围的中间值）。 因此，只要现有技术中的具体示例不在 重叠区域内，通常都可以消除因重叠范 围引起的新颖性异议。 隐含公开 除元素组成外，合金的权利要求往往还 会详述微观结构特征或者通过参数定义 合金的物理或化学性质。这种微观结构 或参数特征可能未被现有技术明确公开 过，或者无法与现有技术公开的信息直 接进行比较。例如，权利要求可以通过 现有技术未提到过的沉淀物的特定尺寸 来定义微观结构。权利要求还可以详述 特定温度下通过夏比冲击试验测定的合 金成分的抗冲击性，而现有技术可以公 开不同温度下的悬臂梁冲击强度试验结 果。在此情况下，可能会很难评估主张 的合金是否是现有技术预期的合金，尤 其是在合金的元素组成本身并非新型组 成的情况下。 在这种情况下，EPO 审查员通常会以主 张的特征或参数会不可避免地导致现有 技术将相同的制造方法应用于具有相同 化学组成的合金为由认定合金的权利要 求缺乏新颖性。也就是说，利用现有技 术隐含或固有地公开主张的合金。 遇到缺乏新颖性的认定时，可能会冒险 修改合金的权利要求，进一步添加组成 9

Another relevant Board of Appeal decision (T 1571/15) concerned a patent for a nickel-based superalloy defined in terms of a chemical composition which overlapped with the broadest ranges of multiple components in a prior art document. Indeed, the patent claim even covered the centre of the broadest range for titanium disclosed in the prior art. However, the prior art also disclosed preferred compositional ranges which did not overlap with the claim, as well as an exemplary composition which fell entirely within the preferred ranges. The Board therefore considered there to be a pointer in the prior art to work within the preferred ranges and not to work within the broader ranges overlapping with the claim under consideration, such that the skilled person would not seriously contemplate working in the area of overlap (despite the claim covering the centre of the broadest range).

Accordingly, as long as none of the specific examples in the prior art fall within the area of overlap, it is often possible to overcome novelty objections based on overlapping ranges.

Implicit disclosure In addition to the elemental composition, claims to an alloy often recite microstructural features or define physical or chemical properties of the alloy in terms of parameters. Such microstructural or parametric features may not be disclosed explicitly in the prior art or may not be directly comparable with the prior art disclosure. For example, a claim may define a microstructure in terms of a particular size of precipitate which is simply not mentioned in the prior art.

Alternatively, a claim could recite the impact resistance of an alloy component as measured

by Charpy impact testing at a particular temperature, whereas the prior art may disclose an Izod impact strength test at a different temperature. In such situations, it can be difficult to assess whether the claimed alloy is anticipated by the prior art, particularly where the elemental composition of the alloy is not itself new.

In such cases, an EPO examiner will often object that the claim to the alloy lacks novelty on the basis that the claimed feature or parameter would inevitably result in the prior art from application of the same manufacturing method to an alloy having the same chemical composition.

www.hlk-ip.cn

或微观结构限制，明确与现有技术的区 别。但是，有时候，解释清楚所主张发 明的制造方法为什么不同于现有技术中 公开的制造方法，即可消除这类缺乏新 颖性的认定。举个例子，如果能够证明 在一定的退火条件下加热合金即可得到 主张的沉淀物或实现主张的抗冲击性， 并且现有技术公开的退火条件与前述退 火条件不同，就可以证实现有技术文件 未隐含地公开沉淀物或抗冲击性。 因此，在起草合金申请时，我们建议对 所有制造步骤的目的以及使用的特定条 件进行说明，并将其与合金的微观结构 和所需性能联系起来。提供能够证明不 同制造条件产生的影响的比较示例也会 大有帮助。

That is to say, the prior art will be taken to disclose the claimed alloy implicitly or inherently.

When faced with such an objection, it can be tempting to amend the alloy claim to add further compositional or microstructural limitations which provide a clearer distinction over the prior art. However, in some cases, it is possible to overcome this type of objection by explaining why the manufacturing method of the claimed invention is different from that disclosed in the prior art. For example, if it can be shown that the claimed precipitate or impact resistance is only achieved when the alloy is heated under certain annealing conditions, and the annealing conditions disclosed in the prior art are different, then it is arguable that the precipitates or impact resistance are not implicitly disclosed in the prior art document.

When drafting alloy applications, we therefore recommend including explanations of the purpose of any manufacturing steps and the particular conditions used, and tying these back to the alloy microstructure and the desired properties. Comparative examples which evidence the effect of varying manufacturing conditions are also particularly helpful.

联系我们 周冠冲 合伙人 dchew@hlk-ip.com

Daniel Chew

利敏

Li Min

中国代表处首席代表 lmin@hlk-ip.com

10

Contact us Partner, Head of Asia Group dchew@hlk-ip.com

Chief Representative China Office lmin@hlk-ip.com

www.hlk-ip.cn