인공지능 시대의 진보성 판단 시 ‘통상의 기술자’ : From PHOSITA To MOSITA
PHOSITA Standard for Assessing Nonobviousness Requirement In the Age of Artificial Intelligence : From PHOSITA to MOSITA
0
조회
0
다운로드
9
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
인공지능이 지배하는 발명의 과정이 미래의 이야기라고 여겨지기도 하지만, 컴퓨터는 이미 엔진, 로봇과 같은 정교한 제품의 설계, 테스트 및 제조공정에 통합되었으며 실험을 시뮬레이션하고 실험 데이터를 분류 및 처리하는데 분야를 막론하고 널리 사용되고 있다. 구체적인 시기에 대해 논란의 여지가 있지만 많은 전문가들은 사람이 할 수 있는 모든 지적 과제를 수행할 수있는 인공지능이 향후 25년 안에 개발될 것이라고 본다. 이러한 시나리오는진보성 심사에 새로운 문제를 불러일으킨다. 예컨대 인공지능으로 생성된발명은 현재의 통상의 기술자 기준으로는 용이하지 않은 것일 수 있는 반면, 유사한 인공지능에 접근할 수 있는 사람에게는 용이한 것일 수 있다. 따라서이 창의적인 기계가 발명의 과정에 표준이 되었을 때를 대비하여, 우리는 다음 세대의 진보성 요건을 준비할 필요가 있다. 이 논문에서는 기술의 진보로향상된 인간의 발명 능력이 진보성 판단에 미쳐 왔던 영향을 고찰하고, 인공지능 기술의 발전에 발맞추어 도입이 필요한 새로운 통상의 기술자 기준을제안한다. 이 새로운 기준은 궁극적으로 발명의 과정에 인간의 기여도가 거의 없어지는 시점에 인공지능의 결과물이 특허심사를 통과할 수 없게 될 것을 목표로 한다.
Abstract
Although the process of invention dominated by Artificial Intelligence(AI) is considered to be the story of the future, computers have already been integrated into the design, testing and manufacturing sophisticated processes of products such as engines and robots, and are used to simulate and classify experimental data. It is being widely used in any field. Even if a specific time is controversial, many experts expect that AI capable of carrying out all the intellectual tasks that humans can do will be developed in the next 25 years. This scenario brings new problems to the nonobviousness standard. For example, an AI-generated inventions may not be obvious for a person skilled in the art, but it may be obvious for a person who can access to similar AI. Therefore, if this creative machine becomes widespread in the process of invention, we need to prepare for the new nonobviousness standard of next generation. This paper reviews the effects of improved human capability on nonobviousness standards, and proposes new standard to specify the concept of MOSITA reflecting advancement of AI. This new standard ultimately aims to make it impossible for AI-generated inventions to pass patent examination at a time when human contributions to the process of invention almost disappear.
참고문헌 (54)
- 김의중, "(알고리즘으로 배우는) 인공지능, 머신러닝, 딥러닝 입문" (2016), 위키북스
- 정차호, "특허법의 진보성" (2014), 박영사
- 조영선, "특허법2.0" (2018), 박영사
- Bostrom, Nick, "Superintelligence : Paths, Dangers, Strategies" (2014), Oxford Univ Press
- Good, Irving John, "Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine, Advanced in Computer" (1965), Academic Press
- Kurzweil, Ray, "The Singularity is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology" (2005), Penguin Books
- Plotkin, Robert, "The Genie in the Machine: How Computer-Automated Inventing is Revolutionizing Law and Business" (2009), Stanford Law Books
- 윤선희, "4차 산업혁명에 대응한 지적재산권 제도의 활용 - ‘인공지능 창작물 보호제도’를 중심으로 -", 산업재산권, (52), pp.155~197 (2017), 한국지식재산학회
- 이상미, "인공지능(AI) 창작물의 저작권자는 누구인가?", 과학기술법연구, 22(3), pp.241~294 (2016), 과학기술법연구원[DOI]
- 이상미, "차세대 인공지능의 특허대상 범위에 대한 도전 - 미국의 법리를 중심으로 -", 산업재산권, (52), pp.115~153 (2017), 한국지식재산학회
- 조영선, "객관적 지표(Objective Indicia)에 기한 발명의 진보성 판단론", 안암법학, (33), pp.395~430 (2010), 안암법학회[DOI]
- 조영선, "인공지능과 특허의 법률문제", 고려법학, (90), pp.197~231 (2018), 법학연구원[DOI]
- Abbott, Ryan, "Big Data Is Not a Monolith" (2016), MIT Press
- Abbott, Ryan, "I Think, Therefore I Invent : Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law", Boston College Law Review, 57 (2016)
- Abbott, Ryan, "Patenting the Output of Autonomously Inventive Machines", Landslide, 10(1) (2017)
- Abbott, Ryan, "Everything is Obvious", UCLA Law Review, 66 (2019)
- Abbott, Ryan, "Machines of Ordinary Skill in the Art : How Inventive Machines Will Change Obviousness", Landslide, 11(5) (2019)
- Burk, Dan L., "The Role of Patent Law in Knowledge Codification", Berkeley Tech Law Journal, 23(3) (2008)
- Burk, Dan L., "Is Patent Law Technology-Specific?", Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 17 (2002)
- Darrow, Jonathan J., "The Neglected Dimension of Patent Laws PHOSITA Standard", Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 23 (2009)
- Duffy, John F., "Inventing Invention : A Case Study of Legal Innovation", Texas Law Review, 86 (2007)
- Fraser, Erica, "Computers as Inventors―Legal and Policy Implications of Artificial Intelligence on Patent Law", SCRIPTed, 13(3) (2016)
- Hickman, Steve, "Revinventing Invention: Why Changing How We Invent Will Change What We Patent and What To Do About It", Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 91 (2009)
- Hornby, G., "Computer-Automated Evolution of an X-Band Antenna for NASA’s Space Technology 5 Mission", Evolutionary Computation, 19 (2011)
- Landers, Amy L., "Ordinary Creativity in Patent Law: The Artist Within the Scientist", Missouri Law Review, 75 (2010)
- Lim, Darly, "AI & IP: Innovation & Creativity in an Age of Accelerated Change", AKRON Law Review, 52 (2018)
- Mandel, Gregory N., "To Promote the Creative Process: Intellectual Property Law and the Psychology of Creativity", Notre Dame Law Review, 86 (2011)
- Melançon, Matthew, "The USPTO Sisyphean Plan Increasing Manpower Will Not Match Artificial Intelligence Inventive Capabilities", Texas Law Review, 96 (2018)
- Müller, Vincent C., "Fundamental Issues of Artificial Intelligence" (2016), Springer
- Samore, William, "Artificial Intelligence and Patent System: Can a new tool render a once patentable idea obvious", Syracuse Journal of Science and Technology Law Reporter, 29 (2013)
- Simon, Brenda M., "The Implications of Technological Advancement for Obviousness", Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review, 19 (2013)
- Tull, Susan Y., "Patenting Artificial Intelligence: Issues of Obviousness, Inventorship, and Patent Eligibility", The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law, 1(5) (2018)
- Vertinsky, Liza, "Thinking about thinking machines implications of machine inventors for patent law", Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 8 (2002)
- Williams, K., "Cheaper Faster Drug Development Validated by the Repositioning of Drugs Against Neglected Tropical Diseases", Journal of The Royal Society Interface, 12 (2015)
- World Economic Forum(WEF), "Artificial Intelligence Collides with Patent Law:Center for the Fourth Industrial Revolution", ~ (2018)
- Yanisky-Ravid, Shlomit, "Generating Rembrandt: Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, and Accountability in the 3A Era–the Human-Like Authors Are Already Here–A New Model", 2017 Michigan State Law Review (2017)
- Yanisky-Ravid, Shlomit, "When Artificial Intelligence Systems Produce Inventions: The 3A Era and an Alternative Model for Patent Law", Cardozo Law Review, 39 (2017)
- 이상미, "산업혁명과 특허 패러다임의 전환", 박사, pp.2020
- Allen, Rama, "AI will be the art movement of the 21st century", QUARTZ, ~ (2018)
- Dyson, George, "Turning’s Cathedral", Edge, ~ (2005)
- Doctor Watson Will See You Now, if IBM Wins in Congress, BLOOMBERG BNA HEALTH IT LAW & INDUSTRY REPORT, "Edney, Anna", ~ (2015)
- Lee, Daniel Y., "Artificial Intelligence as an Incentive Tool and Its Implication to the PHOSITA Standard", JIPEL Blog, ~ (2019)
- Metz, Cade, "One Genius’ Lonely Crusade to Teach a Computer Common Sense", WIRED, ~ (2016)
- Olavsrud, Thor, "10 IBM Watson-Powered Apps That Are Changing Our World", CIO, ~ (2014)
- Ramalho, Ana, "Patentability of AI-Generated Inventions: Is a Reform of the Patent System Needed?", ~ (2018)
- Rejcek, Peter, "Can Futurists Predict the Year of the Singularity?", SINGULARITY HUB, ~ (2017)
- "John Koza’s Publications on Genetic Programming"[URL]
- "IBM Watson for Genomics"[URL]
- "IBM Watson for Drug Discovery"[URL]
- "ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA"[URL]
- "Chef Watson"[URL]
- "DISRUPTION AHEAD: DELOITTE'S POINT OF VIEW ON IBM WATSON 5" (2015)[URL]
- 박민정, "통상의 기술자와 기술수준―심리방식과 판결 개선방안을 중심으로", 특허법원 지적재산소송실무연구회 발표자료 (2011)
- 디지털 환경에서의 특허요건 및 침해에 대한 연구, "특허청", 특허청, ~ (2017)