我們可以從美國專利申請的資訊揭露聲明(Information Disclosure Statement,IDS)來了解prior art 自認的制度意義上的嚴重性。作為Prior Art 自認意義的反面呈現,美國專利審查基準特別註明豁免:在IDS中列出文獻並不構成該文獻屬於prior art 之自認。
更進一步說,prior art自認與答辯過程禁反言(Estoppel)有關。在美國最高法院 Festo Corp 一案 (Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002))中,大法官明確揭示:美國專利之權利項應根據美國專利局之(答辯)過程來進行解釋[1]。
Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002), “Prosecution history estoppel requires that patent claims be interpreted in light of the proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).”
Id, “estoppel arises from any amendment that narrows a claim to comply with the Patent Act, not only from amendments made to avoid the prior art.”
MPEP 1302.14 Reasons for Allowance, “The examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance is the personal opinion of the examiner as to why the claims are allowable … Only applicant’s statements should create an estoppel.”
In re Morsa, 803 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2015), “Mr. Morsa, amongst other things, admitted in the specification that the system as described in the patent ‘can be implemented by any programmer of ordinary skill . . . ,’ thus allowing him to avoid having to teach the public this very concept. Therefore, by using Mr. Morsa’s admissions, the Board simply held him to the statements he made in attempting to procure the patent.”