（二）人工智能时代的技术水平基准：专利法对AI辅助发明的适应性变革
来源：广东中策知识产权研究院 发布日期：2025-02-24 阅读：29次
The Legal Framework: How AI Fits Within Established Patent Law Principles
法律框架：人工智能如何适应既定的专利法原则
The legal foundation for considering AI capabilities in nonobviousness determinations already exists within patent law’s established frameworks. The cornerstone comes from Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F. 2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983), where the Federal Circuit outlined several key factors that remain influential today: (1) educational level of the inventor; (2) type of problems encountered in the art; (3) prior art solutions to those problems; (4) rapidity with which inventions are made; (5) sophistication of the technology; and (6) educational level of active workers in the field.
在非显而易见性判定中考虑人工智能能力的法律基础已经存在于专利法的既定框架中。基石来自 Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co., 713 F. 2d 693 (Fed. Cir. 1983)，联邦巡回法院在该案中概述了几个至今仍有影响力的关键因素：(1) 发明人的教育水平；(2) 技术中遇到的问题类型；(3) 这些问题的现有技术解决方案；(4) 发明的快速性；(5) 技术的复杂性；(6) 该领域在职人员的教育水平。
The Environmental Designs factors naturally accommodate the consideration of AI tools in determining the level of ordinary skill. For example, in connection with “the type of problems encountered in the art,” the availability of, and widespread knowledge of how to use, an AI system that can screen millions of drug candidates or optimize thousands of circuit parameters transforms the nature of problem-solving in these fields. Similarly, when examining “prior art solutions to those problems,” we must recognize that AI tools have become part of the standard toolkit, just as sophisticated testing equipment and advanced manufacturing processes have long been considered in assessing ordinary skill.
在确定普通技术水平时，“环境设计 ”因素自然会考虑人工智能工具。例如，在 “本领域所遇到的问题类型 ”方面，人工智能系统可以筛选数百万候选药物或优化数千个电路参数，其可用性和如何使用的广泛知识改变了这些领域解决问题的性质。同样，在审查 “这些问题的现有技术解决方案 ”时，我们必须认识到人工智能工具已经成为标准工具包的一部分，就像精密的测试设备和先进的制造工艺在评估普通技能时早已被考虑在内一样。
The “sophistication of the technology” and “rapidity of innovation” factors further support considering the impact of AI capabilities on the ability of PHOSITA to solve problems. AI tools have dramatically increased both technological sophistication – enabling practitioners to work with vast datasets and complex solution spaces more quickly, easily, and inexpensively than was possible before such tools were in widespread use. Together, these factors suggest that the baseline capabilities expected of skilled practitioners must evolve to reflect these new technological realities.
“技术的复杂性 ”和“ 创新的快速性 ”因素进一步支持考虑人工智能能力对 PHOSITA （具有普通技能的技术人员）解决问题能力的影响。人工智能工具极大地提高了技术的复杂性--使从业者能够更快速、更轻松、更便宜地处理庞大的数据集和复杂的解决方案空间，这在此类工具广泛使用之前是不可能实现的。这些因素共同表明，对熟练从业人员的基本能力要求必须不断发展，以反映这些新的技术现实。
These factors also include “the educational level of active workers in the field” – a factor that naturally extends to proficiency with AI tools, just as it has long encompassed familiarity with other sophisticated research tools. Today’s skilled practitioners must understand not only their technical field but also how to effectively employ AI tools within it.
这些因素还包括 “该领域在职人员的教育水平”--这一因素自然也包括对人工智能工具的熟练程度，正如长期以来对其他复杂研究工具的熟悉程度一样。如今，技术娴熟的从业人员不仅必须了解自己的技术领域，还必须了解如何在其中有效地使用人工智能工具。
The Supreme Court’s decision in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) reinforces this approach. KSR emphasized that the PHOSITA is not an automaton but a person of “ordinary creativity” capable of fitting known pieces together in new ways. This flexible, common-sense approach readily accommodates considering how AI tools effectively augment human creativity and problem-solving capabilities, while maintaining focus on the human judgment involved in recognizing promising combinations or applications of AI-generated results.
最高法院在 KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) 一案中的判决强化了这一方法。KSR 强调，PHOSITA （具有普通技能的技术人员）不是自动机，而是具有 “普通创造力 ”的人，能够以新的方式将已知的碎片拼接在一起。这种灵活、常识性的方法很容易考虑到人工智能工具如何有效地增强人类的创造力和解决问题的能力，同时将重点保持在识别人工智能生成结果的有前途的组合或应用所涉及的人类判断上。
The Federal Circuit’s subsequent decision in In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009), further reinforces this pragmatic focus on practitioners’ actual capabilities. Although addressing biotechnology rather than AI, Kubin articulated principles directly relevant to how courts should treat AI capabilities in obviousness analyses. The court emphasized that it “cannot, in the face of KSR, cling to formalistic rules for obviousness, customize its legal tests for specific scientific fields in ways that deem entire classes of prior art teachings irrelevant, or discount the significant abilities of artisans of ordinary skill in an advanced area of art.” Just as Kubin acknowledged the “well-known and reliable nature” of certain biotechnology techniques, courts today must recognize the increasingly routine nature of AI tools across many fields. The sophisticated capabilities that AI provides to ordinary practitioners cannot be dismissed simply because they arise from complex or seemingly unpredictable technology.
联邦巡回法院随后在 In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) 一案中的裁决进一步强化了这种对从业人员实际能力的务实关注。虽然涉及的是生物技术而非人工智能，但 Kubin 阐明了与法院在显而易见性分析中应如何对待人工智能能力直接相关的原则。法院强调，"面对 KSR 案，法院不能拘泥于形式主义的显而易见性规则，不能为特定科学领域定制法律测试方法，将整个现有技术教导视为无关紧要，也不能忽视在某一先进技术领域具有普通技能的工匠的重要能力。正如Kubin承认某些生物技术的 “众所周知和可靠的性质 ”一样，今天的法院必须承认人工智能工具在许多领域日益常规化的性质。人工智能为普通从业者提供了复杂的能力，不能仅仅因为这些能力来自于复杂或看似不可预测的技术，就对其不屑一顾。
This evolution in judicial thinking is reflected in recent U.S. Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO) initiatives that demonstrate recognition of AI’s impact on ordinary skill. The April 2024 “Request for Comments on the Impact of the Proliferation of Artificial Intelligence on Prior Art, the Knowledge of a Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art, and Determinations of Patentability Made in View of the Foregoing,” 89 FR 34217 (Apr. 30, 2024), explicitly asks how “the availability of AI as a tool affect[s] the level of skill of a PHOSITA as AI becomes more prevalent,” while specifically referencing the Environmental Designs factors. The USPTO’s July 2024 public listening session further reinforces this alignment between existing legal frameworks and the need to consider AI capabilities.
美国专利商标局（USPTO）最近的举措反映了司法思维的这一演变，这些举措表明人们认识到了人工智能对普通技能的影响。2024 年 4 月的 “关于人工智能的普及对现有技术、本领域普通技术人员的知识以及根据上述情况作出的专利性判定的影响的意见征询”（89 FR 34217，2024 年 4 月 30 日）明确询问 “随着人工智能的普及，人工智能作为一种工具的可用性如何影响 PHOSITA 的技术水平”，同时特别提到了环境设计因素。美国专利商标局 2024 年 7 月的公开听证会进一步加强了现有法律框架与考虑人工智能能力的必要性之间的一致性。
Importantly, this integration of AI considerations into PHOSITA analysis doesn’t require new legal frameworks. Instead, it represents a natural application of well-established principles to evolving technological capabilities. Just as courts have long considered how access to sophisticated tools affects the level of ordinary skill, they can and should consider how AI capabilities influence what skilled practitioners can routinely accomplish. This evolutionary approach provides continuity with existing legal frameworks while maintaining the fundamental principle that the level of ordinary skill should reflect the actual capabilities of practitioners in the field.
重要的是，将人工智能因素纳入 PHOSITA（具有普通技能的技术人员） 分析并不需要新的法律框架。相反，它代表了对不断发展的技术能力的既定原则的自然应用。正如法院长期以来一直在考虑获得尖端工具如何影响普通技能水平一样，法院可以而且应该考虑人工智能能力如何影响熟练从业者能够常规完成的工作。这种循序渐进的方法提供了与现有法律框架的连续性，同时保持了基本原则，即普通技能水平应反映该领域从业者的实际能力。