什麼叫「All element rule」？

什麼叫「All element rule」？這裡的 element 是指 limitation 的意思嗎？例如：

申請專利範圍：A(function a1)+B+C
被控侵權物：A(function a2)+B+C

如 果 element 是指 element 則：侵權，因為都是A+B+C。但似乎不合理，因為 function a1 不等於 function a2 ，因此應不侵權才對，所以這裡的 element 該解譯成 limitation 對吧？如果是對的話，那再看看下面的判決看會有什麼不一樣的感覺！

Patently-O: Patent Law Blog
Rather, the appellate panel found that even the basic requirements of element-by-element equivalents had not been sufficiently shown by the plaintiff because the expert declaration did not provide sufficiently specific testimony to prove a limitation-by-limitation analysis.

Network Commerce v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2005).
We have previously held that a patentee must . . . provide particularized testimony and linking argument as to the “insubstantiality of the differences” between the claimed invention and the accused device or process, or with respect to the function, way, result test when such evidence is presented to support a finding of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. Such evidence must be presented on a limitation-by-limitation basis. Generalized testimony as to the overall similarity between the claims and the accused infringer’s product or process will not suffice.Tex. Instruments Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 90 F.3d 1558, 1567 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

因此在討論均等論時，要看這個 element 整體是否等於另一個 element 整體，但是在分析的時候卻要 limitation-by-limitation 進行分析。

所以 element 就是 element，不是 limitation。自己以前的觀念都“對一半”，當然“對一半”的意思是“錯誤”的較含蓄說法。