|Abstract: ||從西元1908年的Hotel案之後，美國對於商業方法專利是否受到專利保護以及探尋商業方法專利適格的測試法一直受到注目且具爭議性。在State Street Bank案中，聯邦巡迴上訴法院對商業方法專利適格性採用實用、具體有形結果測試法，此種測試法是寬鬆審查方式，會使商業性的公司容易取得專利權。然而美國聯邦最高法院在Bilski案卻採取不同態度，最高法院想要藉由提高商業方法專利適格性標準，補救專利品質下降與專利流氓的問題，並強調機械或轉換測試非唯一的標準。發展至Alice案後，可發現美國聯邦最高法院已不採單一標準，而是建立多重步驟的測試方法判斷專利適格性。此外，USPTO根據Mayo案/Alice案判決，將專利適格性判斷步驟歸納成Step1和Step2A/2B。其中Step2A關於抽象概念之判斷與Step2B顯著超過要件皆是美國法上重要爭議。因此USPTO亦多次補充並更新其專利審查基準。 我國專利法雖未明文排除商業方法，惟專利法第21強調已限於利用自然法則，因此屬於人為規則的商業方法本身，並不符合發明定義。再者，依據我國經濟部智慧財產局所公布的電腦軟體相關發明審查基準，亦否定單純的商業方法為我國專利法保護之客體。至於利用電腦軟體相關技術實施商業方法，使整體請求項產生技術功效時則符合發明定義，則有可能取得專利。因此我國智慧財產局和美國對於商業方法是否屬於專利保護客體之見解並不相同。 至於我國是否應依循美國肯認商業方法專利，並引入美國法專利適格性測試法，本文則認為應採取漸進式作法。於現階段，我國審查機關人力與財力不足，在未解決無前案可檢所先前技術之前，貿然承認商業方法專利，勢必會遭遇與美國相同困境。然可在美國專利適格性測試法穩定以及完善我國周邊配套後，承認商業方法專利存在於我國有其必要性。 關鍵詞：商業方法、電腦軟體、實用具體有形結果測試法、機械或轉換測試法、二步檢驗架構、Mayo案、Alice案、專利適格性審查基準|
Since 1908’s Hotel case, the issue whether business method patent is patentable under 35 U.S.C. §101 as well as its method patent eligibility test has attracted attention and raised controversies in the United States. In 1998’s State Street Bank case, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals stood for the business method patent eligibility establishing by “useful, concrete and results ” test, which made companies easily obtain patents. Later, in 2010’s Bilski, the Supreme Court applied strict test because of the declining business method patent quality and outrageous patent trolls and held that the machine-or-transformation test maybe a useful and important clue but was not the sole test in the issue of patent-eligible process under 35 U.S.C. §101. Till 2014’s Alice case, U.S. Supreme Court established multi-step test method to determine patent eligibility. In addition, USPTO, referring Mayo case and Alice case, put the patent eligibility step into Step1 and Step2A/2B. Wherein Step2A about abstract concepts of judgment and Step2B about significant elements are important controversy in the United Sates. Since then, thus USPTO has repeatedly supplemented and updated Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility. R.O.C. 's patent law, although not expressly exclude business method, but article 21 of the Patent Law is limited in utilizing the laws of nature, so the business method is man made rule itself does not meet the definition of invention. In addition, according to our examination Guidance of computer software-related inventions established, the business method itself is not patent eligible. However, when it to applied to computer software or hardware and generates technical efficiency, the claim will meet the definition of the invention, it may deemed eligible. Therefore, R.O.C. Intellectual Property Office and the United States have different view about business methods patent.As to the issue whether we should, referring U.S. experience, protect business method patents, and adopt eligibility test, the author suggest we should take a progressive approach. At this stage, there is inadequate human and financial resources in our I.P.O., if we hastily acknowledged business method patents, we’ll to encounter the familiar problem as the United States did. However, with U.S. Patent eligibility test is established and our surrounding facilities are well prepared, we may protect business method patents.Key word: business method, computer software, a useful, concrete and tangible result test, Machine-or-Transformation Test, Two Framework Test, Mayo Case, Alice Case, Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility.