什麼叫「All element rule」？（二）

先參見之前的文章什麼叫「All element rule」，整理這一篇是希望能夠了解，什麼叫“element”？什麼叫“limitation”？看完之後，我還不是很了解這兩個字的意思。

In Aquatex v Techniche Solutions (CAFC 05-1088)

However, “[t]he doctrine of equivalents allows the patentee to claim those insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the original patent claim but which could be created through trivial changes.” Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722, 733 (2002) (“Festo II”). Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires that the accused product contain each limitation of the claim or its equivalent. Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17, 40 (1997). An element in the accused product is equivalent to a claim limitation if the differences between the two are insubstantial. The analysis focuses on whether the element in the accused device “performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result” as the claim limitation. Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Prods. Co., 339 U.S. 605, 608 (1950) (internal quotation omitted).

Infringement under the doctrine of equivalents requires that the accused product contain each limitation of the claim or its equivalent.
均等論下的侵權，需要被控物含有claim的每個limitation或它的均等物。（這是「All element rule」嗎？我覺得應該不是，應稱為「All limitation rule」。）

另外特別留意英文用字：「An element in the accused product」、「a claim limitation」。因此 element 指的是被控物；而 limitation 指的是 claim，這兩個字應先稿清楚。（PS：這樣的解譯是對的嗎？）

我的心得：見山是山，見山不是山。搞清楚一個“字”的意思，才是一切的「 根蒂」。繼續研究什麼叫「All element rule」。