什麼叫「All element rule」（四）

什麼叫「All element rule」？（四）

Dolly, Inc. v. Spaulding & Evenflo Cos. 16 F.3d 394, 29 USPQ2d 1767 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

想要更了解「All element rule」一定要看這一篇判例，在此僅以做筆記方式顯現，方便自己以後可迅速找到重點，所以建議親自找此篇判例來看。

一個分開的back and seat panels會等於一個一體成型的stable rigid frame嗎？

Claim 16's language requiring a stable rigid frame independent of seat and back panels is not a requirement solely for literal infringement. This limitation applies under the doctrine of equivalents as well. "Under the doctrine of equivalents, the accused device and the claimed invention cannot work in 'substantially the same way' if a limitation (including its equivalent) is missing."

The doctrine of equivalents cannot extend or enlarge the scope of the claims. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assocs., 904 F.2d 677, 684, 14 USPQ2d 1942, 1948 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 992 (1990). "The claims--i.e. the scope of patent protection as defined by the claims--remain the same and application of the doctrine expands the right to exclude to 'equivalents' of what is claimed." Id. The doctrine of equivalents is not a license to ignore claim limitations. See Pennwalt Corp., 833 F.2d at 935.

“分開”和“一體成型”差別好像不大，可是因為claim中還特別限定“分開”，所以不能夠忽略“分開”這個限制條件，因而不符合「All element rule」，故不能適用均等論。

The doctrine of equivalents does not require a one-to-one correspondence between components of the accused device and the claimed invention. Intel Corp. v. International Trade Comm'n, 946 F.2d 821, 832, 20 USPQ2d 1161, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Vaupel Textilmaschinen KG v. Meccanica Euro Italia S.P.A., 944 F.2d 870, 882, 20 USPQ2d 1045, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1991). An accused device may infringe under the doctrine of equivalents even though a combination of its components performs a function performed by a single element in the patented invention. Intel Corp., 946 F.2d at 832. The accused device must nevertheless contain every limitation or its equivalent. Id.

All element rule不需要one-to-one correspondence，組合多個構件執從一個claim的element也可以。

Equivalency can also exist when separate claim limitations are combined into a single component of the accused device. See Sun Studs, Inc. v. ATA Equip. Leasing Inc., 872 F.2d 978, 10 USPQ2d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 1989),

個別的claim limitation也可以組合成一個被疑侵權物的構件。

還有個例子：
申 請專利範圍：The optical fiber, according to the claims, features a core with a positive dopant in excess of that in the cladding layer around the core.
被疑侵權物：These fibers, instead, contained a negative dopant in the cladding layer.

The Corning Glass court rejected the accused infringer's argument that the accused fibers could not infringe under the doctrine of equivalents because they lacked a claimed "element," the core dopant.

侵權人答辯說，缺少the core dopant這個"element"，故不符合All element rule，所以不適用均等論，此時法官們還特別解譯 element 和limitation間的關係：

"Element" may be used to mean a single limitation, but it has also been used to mean a series of limitations which, taken together, make up a component of the claimed invention. In the [Pennwalt ] All Elements rule, "element" is used in the sense of a limitation of a claim.... An equivalent must be found for every limitation of the claim somewhere in an accused device, but not necessarily in a corresponding component, although that is generally the case.

因此組合多個limitation而成一個element，如“a [negative] dopant in the cladding”、“a [positive] dopant in the core”。

The use of ... a [negative] dopant in the cladding thus performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way as the use of a [positive] dopant in the core to produce the same result of creating the refractive index differential between the core and cladding of the fiber which is necessary for the fiber to function as an optical waveguide. The

This question is important because the level of abstraction that a court takes in parsing out claim limitations (also referred to as elements) can change the result in any given case. However, if every word in a claim is an “element” under the doctrine of equivalents, the doctrine quickly collapses into literal infringement.

法院如何切割claim limitations而成一個element，會決定一個判決，又若將每個字都當成element，那又容易變成literal infringement。可惜法院並沒有提出指導，說明如何切割 limitation 而成 element。我想應該是視個案而定，以“功能”來切割吧。以上述例子為例，core和cladding兩個組合才能產生光通道，因此視為一個element。但再仔細想想，[positive] dopant也會發揮讓core產生“正”的功能啊，為何一定組合呢？