【辭典】Assignor Estoppel 授權人禁反言
源自此文：
The judicial doctrine of assignor estoppel prevents the assignor of a patent from later contending that the patent is invalid.
On appeal, the CAFC agreed that the court had correctly excluded the inventor’s testimony because it would be “unfair” to allow the inventor to testify against the patent.
此司法原則在於防止專利授權人於日後辯稱他的專利無效，因為允許授權人做證反對自己的專利，對被授權人不公平。
9/21/2005
法定類別的定義
法定類別的定義
學了這麼久的專利，你知道如何分辨“機器”、“製品”和“組成物”嗎？我一直搞不清楚，還好今天找到這一篇文章。
The five statutory classes are:
Process: doing something. 做些事情
examples: toasting bread, re-entering the earth's atmosphere;
Machine: something that can do something 用來做些事情的物品
examples: a pop up toaster, a space shuttle plus all the subordinate machines contained respectively therein (respectively therein are a couple of obnoxious, though very handy, patent words you'll practice in Lesson 3,);
Manufacture: something made by man 由人類製造的物品
examples: a pop up toaster, a space shuttle plus all the pieces and parts respectively thereof (ditto above);
Composition of Matter: substance made by man 由人類製造的物質
examples: bread dough, the ceramic material used to make the shuttle re-entry tiles;
New Use: doing something new with something that isn't new. 用舊物品做些新的事情。
看完之後，有比較清楚的感覺了嗎？我還是有點模糊，哈哈！不過比以前好多了。事實上，定義在美專第101條的法定類別只有前四個，而最後一個“New Use”是定義在美專第100條的（b）段上：
The term “process” means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
如果你的專利標的不是這四種法定類別的話，那麼那些喜歡看“Star Wars”年紀只有十三、四歲但卻被困在三、四十歲身體的美國審查委員們，就會告訴你「We don't allow their kind in here.」。
學了這麼久的專利，你知道如何分辨“機器”、“製品”和“組成物”嗎？我一直搞不清楚，還好今天找到這一篇文章。
The five statutory classes are:
Process: doing something. 做些事情
examples: toasting bread, re-entering the earth's atmosphere;
Machine: something that can do something 用來做些事情的物品
examples: a pop up toaster, a space shuttle plus all the subordinate machines contained respectively therein (respectively therein are a couple of obnoxious, though very handy, patent words you'll practice in Lesson 3,);
Manufacture: something made by man 由人類製造的物品
examples: a pop up toaster, a space shuttle plus all the pieces and parts respectively thereof (ditto above);
Composition of Matter: substance made by man 由人類製造的物質
examples: bread dough, the ceramic material used to make the shuttle re-entry tiles;
New Use: doing something new with something that isn't new. 用舊物品做些新的事情。
看完之後，有比較清楚的感覺了嗎？我還是有點模糊，哈哈！不過比以前好多了。事實上，定義在美專第101條的法定類別只有前四個，而最後一個“New Use”是定義在美專第100條的（b）段上：
The term “process” means process, art, or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.
如果你的專利標的不是這四種法定類別的話，那麼那些喜歡看“Star Wars”年紀只有十三、四歲但卻被困在三、四十歲身體的美國審查委員們，就會告訴你「We don't allow their kind in here.」。
專利檢索有技巧
「專利檢索有技巧」: 提供給智權人員的基本資訊至少應有：
確定檢索目標：許多產品具有多項機構或零件組合，若不特別區分，可能會跨許多國際分類或多個技術領域，查詢起來 會很複雜，因此精確鎖定檢索目標是首要工作。
申請人（公司）：包含中、英文或在其他國家的名稱，尤須先查詢該公司有無被併購（專利權即易主）或改名稱， 以免查詢無功。
查詢年限：太長則浪費時間且無意義，一般考量市面上出現的時間點，再加上申請專利的年限即可，可縮短範圍做地毯式精確搜尋。
設定關鍵 字：這是最重要的，可詳細詢問研發人員或業務專才，取得較佳而正確的專業字眼，應避免自我編設等效字詞。
發明人：有時在其他相關類產品的重要發明人也會 跨足其他領域，如以一位優秀發明人為檢索對象，常會發現，他曾以某公司或以個人名義申請的專利，就是檢索苦尋不著的專利案，這通常發生在關鍵字無法設定準 確的情況。
確定檢索目標：許多產品具有多項機構或零件組合，若不特別區分，可能會跨許多國際分類或多個技術領域，查詢起來 會很複雜，因此精確鎖定檢索目標是首要工作。
申請人（公司）：包含中、英文或在其他國家的名稱，尤須先查詢該公司有無被併購（專利權即易主）或改名稱， 以免查詢無功。
查詢年限：太長則浪費時間且無意義，一般考量市面上出現的時間點，再加上申請專利的年限即可，可縮短範圍做地毯式精確搜尋。
設定關鍵 字：這是最重要的，可詳細詢問研發人員或業務專才，取得較佳而正確的專業字眼，應避免自我編設等效字詞。
發明人：有時在其他相關類產品的重要發明人也會 跨足其他領域，如以一位優秀發明人為檢索對象，常會發現，他曾以某公司或以個人名義申請的專利，就是檢索苦尋不著的專利案，這通常發生在關鍵字無法設定準 確的情況。
【辭典】claim differentiation 申請專利範圍相異原則
【辭典】claim differentiation 申請專利範圍相異原則
趣味の雑誌会（米国特許実務関係）: "論説『米国におけるclaim differentiation法理の日本の特許権侵害訴訟での主張の 可否』、中村彰吾、知財管理、Vol.53、No.6、2003、pp889-896
claim differentiationの法理とは、異なるクレーム（文言が異なる）同士は、異なる権利範囲を有すると解釈すべし、というもので、特に従属関係にあるクレーム群においては、従属先のクレームは、従属項における限定事項を含まないものも包含する、と解釈すべき、というものです。←私の理解ですが。"
參照此篇文章：
claim differentiation的法理為文義上相異的claim之間，應解譯成具有相異的權利範圍，特別是具有附屬關係的claim群組，被附屬的claim其所包含的範圍：不包括附屬項的限定條件。
參照此篇文章：
The doctrine of claim differentiation “create[s] a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope.” Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The difference in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be significant “[t]o the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous.” Tandon Corp. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, dependent claims limiting the claim to a single cable confirm that the independent claims may encompass more than one cable.
趣味の雑誌会（米国特許実務関係）: "論説『米国におけるclaim differentiation法理の日本の特許権侵害訴訟での主張の 可否』、中村彰吾、知財管理、Vol.53、No.6、2003、pp889-896
claim differentiationの法理とは、異なるクレーム（文言が異なる）同士は、異なる権利範囲を有すると解釈すべし、というもので、特に従属関係にあるクレーム群においては、従属先のクレームは、従属項における限定事項を含まないものも包含する、と解釈すべき、というものです。←私の理解ですが。"
參照此篇文章：
claim differentiation的法理為文義上相異的claim之間，應解譯成具有相異的權利範圍，特別是具有附屬關係的claim群組，被附屬的claim其所包含的範圍：不包括附屬項的限定條件。
參照此篇文章：
The doctrine of claim differentiation “create[s] a presumption that each claim in a patent has a different scope.” Comark Communications, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The difference in meaning and scope between claims is presumed to be significant “[t]o the extent that the absence of such difference in meaning and scope would make a claim superfluous.” Tandon Corp. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 831 F.2d 1017, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, dependent claims limiting the claim to a single cable confirm that the independent claims may encompass more than one cable.
9/20/2005
「用功能代表結構」以及「功能手段語言」
「用功能代表結構」以及「功能手段語言」
Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.（03-1534, -1535）
c) a connector assembly for connecting each pair of adjacent support members, said connector assembly being pivotally connected to said pair of adjacent support members; and
猜看看「connector assembly」屬不屬於Means-Plus-Function的用語！
答案摘錄自：ALACRITECH, INC., v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,（04-03284）
When a claim term does not use the term “means,” there is a rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To overcome the presumption, a party must demonstrate that the “the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. (internal quotes and citations omitted). The presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply “is a strong one that is not readily overcome.” Id.
沒有使用means就推定不適用§ 112 ¶ 6，而且這個推定不容易推翻。
In determining whether a claim term recites sufficient structure to avoid application of §112 ¶ 6, the Federal Circuit does not require the claim term to denote a specific structure. Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1359. Rather, “it is sufficient if the claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies structures by their function.” Id. at 1359-60. The Lighting World court further explained that whether the term at issue does not bring to mind a particular structure is not dispositive. “What is important is whether the term is one that is understood to describe structure, as opposed to a term that is simply a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name of structure and is simply a substitute for the term ‘means for.’” Id. at 1360.
要決定一個term是否為代表結構，應考慮通常的專業用語和該行業者是否用來標示結構，即使它包含了很廣類別的結構；或是該用語以功能來定義結構亦然。
Similarly, in Lighting World, the court rejected the contention that the term “connector assembly” insufficiently identified a structure because dictionary definitions disclosed that the term “connector” had a reasonably well-understood meaning as a name for structure, even though structure was defined in terms of the function it performed. Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1360-61. The fact that more than one structure may be described by the term “connector,” did not make the term “connector assembly” any less a name for structure. Id. at 1361.
雖然“connector assembly”係用功能來定義結構，但是依字典的定義顯示： “connector”這個term是結構的名稱，這是合理而且公知的意思。因此“connector assembly”已足以定義為結構。
回過頭看看「Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.」中出現的一句話：「The consequence of defining the term “connector assembly” free of the constraints of section 112 ¶ 6 may be to render the claim more vulnerable to attack for invalidity, but that is a risk that a claim drafter assumes by choosing broad structural terms rather than choosing to claim in means-plus-function format under section 112 ¶ 6.」
小心使用「功能代表結構」的用語，因為這使claim很容易無效。
Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.（03-1534, -1535）
c) a connector assembly for connecting each pair of adjacent support members, said connector assembly being pivotally connected to said pair of adjacent support members; and
猜看看「connector assembly」屬不屬於Means-Plus-Function的用語！
答案摘錄自：ALACRITECH, INC., v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,（04-03284）
When a claim term does not use the term “means,” there is a rebuttable presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply. Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004). To overcome the presumption, a party must demonstrate that the “the claim term fails to recite sufficiently definite structure or recites function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.” Id. (internal quotes and citations omitted). The presumption that § 112 ¶ 6 does not apply “is a strong one that is not readily overcome.” Id.
沒有使用means就推定不適用§ 112 ¶ 6，而且這個推定不容易推翻。
In determining whether a claim term recites sufficient structure to avoid application of §112 ¶ 6, the Federal Circuit does not require the claim term to denote a specific structure. Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1359. Rather, “it is sufficient if the claim term is used in common parlance or by persons of skill in the pertinent art to designate structure, even if the term covers a broad class of structures and even if the term identifies structures by their function.” Id. at 1359-60. The Lighting World court further explained that whether the term at issue does not bring to mind a particular structure is not dispositive. “What is important is whether the term is one that is understood to describe structure, as opposed to a term that is simply a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name of structure and is simply a substitute for the term ‘means for.’” Id. at 1360.
要決定一個term是否為代表結構，應考慮通常的專業用語和該行業者是否用來標示結構，即使它包含了很廣類別的結構；或是該用語以功能來定義結構亦然。
Similarly, in Lighting World, the court rejected the contention that the term “connector assembly” insufficiently identified a structure because dictionary definitions disclosed that the term “connector” had a reasonably well-understood meaning as a name for structure, even though structure was defined in terms of the function it performed. Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1360-61. The fact that more than one structure may be described by the term “connector,” did not make the term “connector assembly” any less a name for structure. Id. at 1361.
雖然“connector assembly”係用功能來定義結構，但是依字典的定義顯示： “connector”這個term是結構的名稱，這是合理而且公知的意思。因此“connector assembly”已足以定義為結構。
回過頭看看「Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc.」中出現的一句話：「The consequence of defining the term “connector assembly” free of the constraints of section 112 ¶ 6 may be to render the claim more vulnerable to attack for invalidity, but that is a risk that a claim drafter assumes by choosing broad structural terms rather than choosing to claim in means-plus-function format under section 112 ¶ 6.」
小心使用「功能代表結構」的用語，因為這使claim很容易無效。
9/19/2005
【美專】關於Provisional Application 與國內優先權
【9月19日更新】
在這Inventors Resources Tip of the Month有關 "Provisional Application Features的介紹：
* Provides simplified filing with a lower initial investment with one full year to assess the invention’s commercial potential before committing to the higher cost of filing and prosecuting a non-provisional application for patent;
* Establishes an official United States patent application filing date for the invention;
* Permits one year’s authorization to use 'Patent Pending' notice in connection with the invention;
* Begins the Paris Convention priority year;
* Enables immediate commercial promotion of the invention with greater security against having the invention stolen;
* Preserves application in confidence without publication in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122(b);
* Permits applicant to obtain USPTO certified copies;
* Allows for the filing of multiple provisional applications for patent and for consolidating them in a single �111(a) non-provisional application for patent;這一點對於研發型的公司很有用，為了強先得到申請日只要有發明就搶先file provisional application，再於等到一年內，將這一整年的整合成一個申請案。
* Provides for submission of additional inventor names by petition if omission occurred without deceptive intent (deletions are also possible by petition).
其他我還知道：
* provisional application和國外優先權相同，可以主張複數個權先權、部分優先權
* 非英文申請案也可以不需要繳翻譯文
* 可以“徧移”專利權期間一年，這對醫藥、農藥的公司更為重要，因為新藥及新農藥還需要國家的允可才可上市，通常需要做很多的試驗，雖然大部分的國家都會規 定延長的條款，試驗的時間也許會長過最大可延長期間（臺灣最多可延長5年），所以對醫藥、農藥的公司可以發明完成後儘快申請試驗，利用“國內優先權”的方 式，將專利權期間往後徧移一年，又可以取得較早的申請日。
其他相關可參照哈金論壇的討論
●哈金前輩對臨時申請案的叮嚀
註 二: 美國是「先發明」主義的國家，雖然新穎性的規定中大部分是以發明日作為判定基準，有些法規中卻是以美國申請日為基準。例如美國專利法第 102(b) 條中的新穎性判定是以 "美國申請日" 作為判定基準。另外，依照美國專利法的 102(e)條的規定，審查委員可以引用具有較早 "美國申請日" 的已公開或獲准的申請案作為核駁其他申請案的引證案。
國外優先權日不屬於“美國有效申請日”，這點很容易忽略。
●關於 US Porvisional Application for patent，其中哈金前輩有提到provisional application的專利期間計算可分為兩種：
（1）如果在 PPA 提出後的 12 個月內提出一般的美國專利申請案，並主張 PPA 的申請日作為優先權日，美國專利期限是一般申請案的申請日起算 20 年（過程中如果有延誤的話，美國專利會作適當的專利期調整）。
（2）但是如果是直接將 PPA 直接轉為一般申請案的話，美國專利期限是由 PPA 的申請日起算 20 年，由於起算日較早，因此期限日會比第一種情況早，所以大部分的申請人都不太會選擇直接將 PPA 轉為一般申請案。」
一開始一直覺得很奇怪為什麼會有第二種，provisional application使用第二種的話，一點意義也沒有，後來於某個日本文章看到了答案：
因為巴黎公約規定，只要是合約國的“正式” 申請案，都可主張國際優先權，美國為了就是避開provisional application被其他國家視為“非正式”申請案，而不能在其他國家主張provisional application的優先權，所以才於1999年11月29日進行修法，加入第二種直接轉為一般申請案的方式。
【9月19日更新】在加入“第二種方式”的原因，這一篇解譯的更清楚：
It used to be commonly believed that PCT conversions may be in jeopardy when a US provisional application did not have claims, under the theory that the US provisional was not a valid national application for some foreign countries. However, Congress amended section 111(b)(5) so that a provisional may be converted to a non-provisional and vice-versa. Because a provisional always has the potential to be converted to a non-provisional, it is a valid national application under Article 4 of the Paris Convention.
自己的想法
小 弟個人覺得“provisional application”相當於臺灣的”國內優先權”，因此若有需要利用到“provisional application”的好處時，在臺灣可以考慮使用國內優先權，至於這樣的使用要注意什麼我就不是很清楚了，另一方面CA、CIP、或DA的子案所享 受到的並不像“優先權”那樣有那麼多的彈性，它比較像臺灣的“分割案”雖然這麼說會有點牽強，其實只要注意一下美國MPEP的用字即可知道美專實務中是有 刻意要將它們加以區別的，如「priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)」119條下的稱做priority；但是「 benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120」120下的稱做benefit，因此只要看到用字就可以知道他們是引用哪條條款，至於為什麼要設計”國內優先權”呢？試想在巴黎公約規定“國外優 先權”後，一個外國案可以享受到的利益（參考上述雖然不儘相同），如果國內沒有設計個“國內優先權”的話，是不是會造成“國外”和”國內”的不平等？
寫 這篇文章是為了，上述的「這一點對於研發型的公司很有用，為了強先得到申請日只要有發明就搶先file provisional application，再於等到一年內，將這一整年的整合成一個申請案」，如果過了一年之後怎麼辦？在做申請專利的策略上應考慮什麼？小弟最近還在閱讀 資料以及思考，往後的blogger內容也都會與這個題目相關。
===========================================
【8月25日】
今天看到和我上面所說的，有一些不一樣的地方：
This application is filed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. .sctn.119(e)(1) and claims the
benefit of the provisional application Ser. No. 60/227,033 filed on Aug. 23, 2000, entitled "Method And Apparatus For Texture Tiling In A Graphics System."
在這Inventors Resources Tip of the Month有關 "Provisional Application Features的介紹：
* Provides simplified filing with a lower initial investment with one full year to assess the invention’s commercial potential before committing to the higher cost of filing and prosecuting a non-provisional application for patent;
* Establishes an official United States patent application filing date for the invention;
* Permits one year’s authorization to use 'Patent Pending' notice in connection with the invention;
* Begins the Paris Convention priority year;
* Enables immediate commercial promotion of the invention with greater security against having the invention stolen;
* Preserves application in confidence without publication in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 122(b);
* Permits applicant to obtain USPTO certified copies;
* Allows for the filing of multiple provisional applications for patent and for consolidating them in a single �111(a) non-provisional application for patent;這一點對於研發型的公司很有用，為了強先得到申請日只要有發明就搶先file provisional application，再於等到一年內，將這一整年的整合成一個申請案。
* Provides for submission of additional inventor names by petition if omission occurred without deceptive intent (deletions are also possible by petition).
其他我還知道：
* provisional application和國外優先權相同，可以主張複數個權先權、部分優先權
* 非英文申請案也可以不需要繳翻譯文
* 可以“徧移”專利權期間一年，這對醫藥、農藥的公司更為重要，因為新藥及新農藥還需要國家的允可才可上市，通常需要做很多的試驗，雖然大部分的國家都會規 定延長的條款，試驗的時間也許會長過最大可延長期間（臺灣最多可延長5年），所以對醫藥、農藥的公司可以發明完成後儘快申請試驗，利用“國內優先權”的方 式，將專利權期間往後徧移一年，又可以取得較早的申請日。
其他相關可參照哈金論壇的討論
●哈金前輩對臨時申請案的叮嚀
註 二: 美國是「先發明」主義的國家，雖然新穎性的規定中大部分是以發明日作為判定基準，有些法規中卻是以美國申請日為基準。例如美國專利法第 102(b) 條中的新穎性判定是以 "美國申請日" 作為判定基準。另外，依照美國專利法的 102(e)條的規定，審查委員可以引用具有較早 "美國申請日" 的已公開或獲准的申請案作為核駁其他申請案的引證案。
國外優先權日不屬於“美國有效申請日”，這點很容易忽略。
●關於 US Porvisional Application for patent，其中哈金前輩有提到provisional application的專利期間計算可分為兩種：
（1）如果在 PPA 提出後的 12 個月內提出一般的美國專利申請案，並主張 PPA 的申請日作為優先權日，美國專利期限是一般申請案的申請日起算 20 年（過程中如果有延誤的話，美國專利會作適當的專利期調整）。
（2）但是如果是直接將 PPA 直接轉為一般申請案的話，美國專利期限是由 PPA 的申請日起算 20 年，由於起算日較早，因此期限日會比第一種情況早，所以大部分的申請人都不太會選擇直接將 PPA 轉為一般申請案。」
一開始一直覺得很奇怪為什麼會有第二種，provisional application使用第二種的話，一點意義也沒有，後來於某個日本文章看到了答案：
因為巴黎公約規定，只要是合約國的“正式” 申請案，都可主張國際優先權，美國為了就是避開provisional application被其他國家視為“非正式”申請案，而不能在其他國家主張provisional application的優先權，所以才於1999年11月29日進行修法，加入第二種直接轉為一般申請案的方式。
【9月19日更新】在加入“第二種方式”的原因，這一篇解譯的更清楚：
It used to be commonly believed that PCT conversions may be in jeopardy when a US provisional application did not have claims, under the theory that the US provisional was not a valid national application for some foreign countries. However, Congress amended section 111(b)(5) so that a provisional may be converted to a non-provisional and vice-versa. Because a provisional always has the potential to be converted to a non-provisional, it is a valid national application under Article 4 of the Paris Convention.
自己的想法
小 弟個人覺得“provisional application”相當於臺灣的”國內優先權”，因此若有需要利用到“provisional application”的好處時，在臺灣可以考慮使用國內優先權，至於這樣的使用要注意什麼我就不是很清楚了，另一方面CA、CIP、或DA的子案所享 受到的並不像“優先權”那樣有那麼多的彈性，它比較像臺灣的“分割案”雖然這麼說會有點牽強，其實只要注意一下美國MPEP的用字即可知道美專實務中是有 刻意要將它們加以區別的，如「priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e)」119條下的稱做priority；但是「 benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120」120下的稱做benefit，因此只要看到用字就可以知道他們是引用哪條條款，至於為什麼要設計”國內優先權”呢？試想在巴黎公約規定“國外優 先權”後，一個外國案可以享受到的利益（參考上述雖然不儘相同），如果國內沒有設計個“國內優先權”的話，是不是會造成“國外”和”國內”的不平等？
寫 這篇文章是為了，上述的「這一點對於研發型的公司很有用，為了強先得到申請日只要有發明就搶先file provisional application，再於等到一年內，將這一整年的整合成一個申請案」，如果過了一年之後怎麼辦？在做申請專利的策略上應考慮什麼？小弟最近還在閱讀 資料以及思考，往後的blogger內容也都會與這個題目相關。
===========================================
【8月25日】
今天看到和我上面所說的，有一些不一樣的地方：
This application is filed in accordance with 35 U.S.C. .sctn.119(e)(1) and claims the
benefit of the provisional application Ser. No. 60/227,033 filed on Aug. 23, 2000, entitled "Method And Apparatus For Texture Tiling In A Graphics System."
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？
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？
9/18/2005
你的專利有用嗎？
你的專利有用嗎？
這是一篇探討“實用性”的文章：
To obtain a patent, an invention must be useful. An inherently inoperative invention lacks the necessary utility, and thus is not entitled to a patent.（沒有“產業利用性”的話是不能得到專利）
Ms. Cortright有個治療禿頭的發明，被審查委員以不具“實用性”核駁，原因滿有趣的：Specifically, the Patent Office presumed that her baldness treatment claims were suspect because baldness is generally considered“incurable”。禿頭真的是incurable的嗎？還好我沒有這種困擾。最後PTO因Ms. Cortright 缺乏臨床實驗證據（had failed to present any clinical evidence）而核駁該專利。
On appeal, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (an appeal board within the Patent Office) clarified that Ms. Cortright was not required to submit clinical evidence of Bag Balm�s� effectiveness to establish her invention�s utility. All that patent law requires for the purpose of establishing utility is a credible assertion, as assessed from an ordinarily skilled professional�s perspective, that the invention works for its intended purpose.
Board則認為要實用性的不需要臨床實驗證據，僅需要“credible assertion”。但卻以不符合enablement拒絕Ms. Cortright的專利。
Reviewing other patents for baldness treatment, the Court concluded that a claim for restoring hair growth was not a promise of a full head of hair.（治禿頭的發明也不需要a promise of a full head of hair，有長就好）
As this case illustrates, the utility requirement is a relatively easy requirement to meet. You must show only that your invention is capable of performing some beneficial function to humanity, which may be not much if only marginal benefit is expected in the particular field of technology.
我覺得重點在“capable of performing some beneficial function to humanity, which may be not much if only marginal benefit is expected”，實用性的要求是滿低的標準對吧，不過我現在才知道。
最後，摘錄一段很有趣的句子：
Do you think the panel’s ruling in this case was affected by the fact that each judge (Chief Judge Mayer, and Circuit Judges Newman and Rader) has a full head of hair?
這是一篇探討“實用性”的文章：
To obtain a patent, an invention must be useful. An inherently inoperative invention lacks the necessary utility, and thus is not entitled to a patent.（沒有“產業利用性”的話是不能得到專利）
Ms. Cortright有個治療禿頭的發明，被審查委員以不具“實用性”核駁，原因滿有趣的：Specifically, the Patent Office presumed that her baldness treatment claims were suspect because baldness is generally considered“incurable”。禿頭真的是incurable的嗎？還好我沒有這種困擾。最後PTO因Ms. Cortright 缺乏臨床實驗證據（had failed to present any clinical evidence）而核駁該專利。
On appeal, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (an appeal board within the Patent Office) clarified that Ms. Cortright was not required to submit clinical evidence of Bag Balm�s� effectiveness to establish her invention�s utility. All that patent law requires for the purpose of establishing utility is a credible assertion, as assessed from an ordinarily skilled professional�s perspective, that the invention works for its intended purpose.
Board則認為要實用性的不需要臨床實驗證據，僅需要“credible assertion”。但卻以不符合enablement拒絕Ms. Cortright的專利。
Reviewing other patents for baldness treatment, the Court concluded that a claim for restoring hair growth was not a promise of a full head of hair.（治禿頭的發明也不需要a promise of a full head of hair，有長就好）
As this case illustrates, the utility requirement is a relatively easy requirement to meet. You must show only that your invention is capable of performing some beneficial function to humanity, which may be not much if only marginal benefit is expected in the particular field of technology.
我覺得重點在“capable of performing some beneficial function to humanity, which may be not much if only marginal benefit is expected”，實用性的要求是滿低的標準對吧，不過我現在才知道。
最後，摘錄一段很有趣的句子：
Do you think the panel’s ruling in this case was affected by the fact that each judge (Chief Judge Mayer, and Circuit Judges Newman and Rader) has a full head of hair?
9/16/2005
【辭典】shop right 職場權
【辭典】shop right 職場權
A shop right is an employer’s non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-transferable license to make, use and sell items embodying an employee’s patentable invention, but only within the normal scope of its business. A shop right doesn’t automatically arise, however. It typically exists only where an employee has used the employer’s time, materials or equipment in creating the patented invention. A shop right can last beyond the employee’s term of employment, but expires along with the patent at the end of its 20 year term. Technically, a shop right is not an ownership right in the patent, but is a defense against an employee’s allegation of patent infringement.
若員工使用雇主的機器、設備等完成發明，那麼雇主就可以擁有實施（製造、使用、販賣）該發明的non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-transferable license，這種就叫做shop right（職場權）。原出處按一下。
其他還可參照按一下：
依專利法之規定，於僱傭關係中，受雇人在職務上完成之發明、新型或新式樣，其「專利申請權和專利權」屬於雇用人所有(hired-to-invent)，但可以契約另訂之，雇主並應支付適當的報酬，且所訂契約若使受雇人不能享有權益者無效。非職務範圍內完成之發明或創作，其專利申請權和專利權則歸受雇人所有，但是受雇人在完成後有告知雇主的義務。且若係利用到雇主之資源或經驗而完成者，雇主在支付合理報酬後，在相關事業上有實施該專利的權利 (shop-right)。而當係處於聘約關係時受聘人研發完成之專利，其專利申請權和專利權之歸屬乃依雙方契約而定，未約定時則歸受聘人所有，但出資人享有實施權。
「受雇人在完成後有告知雇主的義務」是出自於專利法第8條，只是不知道為什麼要定這一條？有什麼特別的理由嗎？
A shop right is an employer’s non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-transferable license to make, use and sell items embodying an employee’s patentable invention, but only within the normal scope of its business. A shop right doesn’t automatically arise, however. It typically exists only where an employee has used the employer’s time, materials or equipment in creating the patented invention. A shop right can last beyond the employee’s term of employment, but expires along with the patent at the end of its 20 year term. Technically, a shop right is not an ownership right in the patent, but is a defense against an employee’s allegation of patent infringement.
若員工使用雇主的機器、設備等完成發明，那麼雇主就可以擁有實施（製造、使用、販賣）該發明的non-exclusive, royalty-free, non-transferable license，這種就叫做shop right（職場權）。原出處按一下。
其他還可參照按一下：
依專利法之規定，於僱傭關係中，受雇人在職務上完成之發明、新型或新式樣，其「專利申請權和專利權」屬於雇用人所有(hired-to-invent)，但可以契約另訂之，雇主並應支付適當的報酬，且所訂契約若使受雇人不能享有權益者無效。非職務範圍內完成之發明或創作，其專利申請權和專利權則歸受雇人所有，但是受雇人在完成後有告知雇主的義務。且若係利用到雇主之資源或經驗而完成者，雇主在支付合理報酬後，在相關事業上有實施該專利的權利 (shop-right)。而當係處於聘約關係時受聘人研發完成之專利，其專利申請權和專利權之歸屬乃依雙方契約而定，未約定時則歸受聘人所有，但出資人享有實施權。
「受雇人在完成後有告知雇主的義務」是出自於專利法第8條，只是不知道為什麼要定這一條？有什麼特別的理由嗎？
9/15/2005
【辭典】Quid Pro Quo 相等對價
【辭典】Quid Pro Quo 相等對價
Quid Pro Quo 此拉丁文之意係指相等的報酬或對價，如用於專利權之領域係指回饋，亦即社會給予發明人之發明獲得專利權的保障，該發明人即應回饋社會。
原始出處按一下。
Quid Pro Quo 此拉丁文之意係指相等的報酬或對價，如用於專利權之領域係指回饋，亦即社會給予發明人之發明獲得專利權的保障，該發明人即應回饋社會。
原始出處按一下。
日本均等論的適用要件
知的財産権判例速報
H10年07月：均等論適用の要件
看看一些日本最高法院對均等論所提出的一些要件。
即ち，均等論を適用するには，次の要件が満たされていなければならないとし，東京高等裁判所において，それらの要件が満たされているか否か，再度審理すべきことを命じたのです。
ａ 相違する構成要件部分が，特許発明の本質的部分ではないこと，
ｂ 相違する構成要件の部分を対象製品におけるものに置き換えても，特許発明の目的を達することができ，同一の作用効果を奏すること，
ｃ 置換が，当業者が対象製品の製造の時点において容易に想到することができたこと，
ｄ 対象製品が，特許発明の特許出願時における公知技術と同一または当業者がこれから出願時に容易に推考できたものではないこと，
ｅ 対象製品が特許発明の特許出願手続において特許請求の範囲から意識的に除外する等の特段の事情がないこと。
日本最高法院判決，命令均等論的適用尚需滿足下列五個要件：
其中對於A還滿值得注意的，為什麼相異的部分是專利發明的本質的話就不可以適用均等論呢？想不透？不是應該相反才比較對嗎？
【9月15日更新】
看看這一篇文章，也許可以得到一些答案。
4. 均等理論成立要件的置換可能性(註32)，論及“發明之本質特徵”有關的要件，如果把發明本質特徵的要件，省略其中之一，是否可歸類為“抽出”本質之特徵有關要件，是否即是變更發明本質的特徵，而屬脫離發明技術思想的一種成功的迴避設計？有待引入具體判例或判決解說之。
【11月12日更新】
專利發明的本質部分
資料來源：
数値限定発明において均等侵害が否定された事件
「平成１６年５月２８日 東京地裁判決 平成１５年（ワ）１６０５５号事件」
生田哲郎 高橋淳
【均 等の第１要件についての判断】：特 許発明の本質的部分とは，特許請求の範囲に記載された特許発明の構成のうちで，当該特許発明特有の課題解決手段を基礎づける特徴的部分，言い換えれば，当 該部分が他の構成に置き換えられるならば全体として当該特許発明の技術的思想とは別個のものと評価されるような部分をいう。そ して，発明が各構成要件の有機的な結合により特定の作用効果を奏するものであることに照らせば，対象製品との相違が特許発明における本質的部分に係るもの であるかどうかを判断するに当たっては，特許請求の範囲の記載だけでなく，特許発明を先行技術と対比して課題の解決手段における特徴的原理を確定すべきで ある。
【均等第1要件的判斷】：專利發明的本質部 分，係指：於申請專利範圍所 記載的專利發明的構成中，以該專利發明特有的解決課題手段為基礎的特徵部分；換言之，若將該部分置換成其他構成的話，則整體觀之，該專利發明的技術思想會 被視為另一個技術思想，這樣的部分即為本質部分。於是，若對照發明根據各構成要件的有機結合而達成特定的作用效果，進行判斷專利發明與對象製品的相異部 分，是否為有關專利發明的本質部分者時，不僅是確定申請專利範圍的記載，還應該將專利發明與先前技術進行對比，來確定解決課題手與的特徵原理。
【2011年06月13日】 更新
關於要件第四點，可參考以下判例。
http://tokkyo.hanrei.jp/precedent/View.do?type=pt&id=5686
H10年07月：均等論適用の要件
看看一些日本最高法院對均等論所提出的一些要件。
即ち，均等論を適用するには，次の要件が満たされていなければならないとし，東京高等裁判所において，それらの要件が満たされているか否か，再度審理すべきことを命じたのです。
ａ 相違する構成要件部分が，特許発明の本質的部分ではないこと，
ｂ 相違する構成要件の部分を対象製品におけるものに置き換えても，特許発明の目的を達することができ，同一の作用効果を奏すること，
ｃ 置換が，当業者が対象製品の製造の時点において容易に想到することができたこと，
ｄ 対象製品が，特許発明の特許出願時における公知技術と同一または当業者がこれから出願時に容易に推考できたものではないこと，
ｅ 対象製品が特許発明の特許出願手続において特許請求の範囲から意識的に除外する等の特段の事情がないこと。
日本最高法院判決，命令均等論的適用尚需滿足下列五個要件：
- 相異構成要件的部分不是專利發明的本質部分。
- 即使將相異構成要件的部分，與對象製品中的部分置換，還可以達到相同的專利發明目的，達到相同的作用效果。
- 該置換為於該行業者製造對象製品時所能輕易思及者。
- 對象製品與專利發明之專利申請時的公知技術相同；或者為該行業者從公知技術於申請當時能夠輕易推知者。
- 對象製品不是：於專利發明的申請專利程序中，有意識地將其從申請專利範圍排除等的特別情事。
其中對於A還滿值得注意的，為什麼相異的部分是專利發明的本質的話就不可以適用均等論呢？想不透？不是應該相反才比較對嗎？
【9月15日更新】
看看這一篇文章，也許可以得到一些答案。
4. 均等理論成立要件的置換可能性(註32)，論及“發明之本質特徵”有關的要件，如果把發明本質特徵的要件，省略其中之一，是否可歸類為“抽出”本質之特徵有關要件，是否即是變更發明本質的特徵，而屬脫離發明技術思想的一種成功的迴避設計？有待引入具體判例或判決解說之。
【11月12日更新】
專利發明的本質部分
資料來源：
数値限定発明において均等侵害が否定された事件
「平成１６年５月２８日 東京地裁判決 平成１５年（ワ）１６０５５号事件」
生田哲郎 高橋淳
【均 等の第１要件についての判断】：特 許発明の本質的部分とは，特許請求の範囲に記載された特許発明の構成のうちで，当該特許発明特有の課題解決手段を基礎づける特徴的部分，言い換えれば，当 該部分が他の構成に置き換えられるならば全体として当該特許発明の技術的思想とは別個のものと評価されるような部分をいう。そ して，発明が各構成要件の有機的な結合により特定の作用効果を奏するものであることに照らせば，対象製品との相違が特許発明における本質的部分に係るもの であるかどうかを判断するに当たっては，特許請求の範囲の記載だけでなく，特許発明を先行技術と対比して課題の解決手段における特徴的原理を確定すべきで ある。
【均等第1要件的判斷】：專利發明的本質部 分，係指：於申請專利範圍所 記載的專利發明的構成中，以該專利發明特有的解決課題手段為基礎的特徵部分；換言之，若將該部分置換成其他構成的話，則整體觀之，該專利發明的技術思想會 被視為另一個技術思想，這樣的部分即為本質部分。於是，若對照發明根據各構成要件的有機結合而達成特定的作用效果，進行判斷專利發明與對象製品的相異部 分，是否為有關專利發明的本質部分者時，不僅是確定申請專利範圍的記載，還應該將專利發明與先前技術進行對比，來確定解決課題手與的特徵原理。
【2011年06月13日】 更新
關於要件第四點，可參考以下判例。
http://tokkyo.hanrei.jp/precedent/View.do?type=pt&id=5686
| 平成 6年 (オ) 1083号 特許権侵害差止等 |
9/14/2005
Why element-by-element inquiry ?
出自中國的一篇文章：
How to interpret a patent claim is a key issue in deciding whether an infringement of the patent occurred there. When the Federal Circuit decided Hilton Davis Chemical Co., v. Warner Jenkinson Co., 62 F. 3d 1512, (Fed. Cir. 1995), it used "insubstantial difference" test to decide whether the accused product or process infringed the patented product or process. That is, if the accused product or process as a whole is the same one as the product or process covered by the patent, there is an infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, otherwise there is no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. However, this is more close to the central claiming principle in interpretation of a patent claim, which is contrary to the peripheral claiming principle used by U. S. courts for a long period.
As a whole下適用均等論的話，較接近中心限定主義。然而這與美國法院長期使用之周邊限定主義衝突。
How to interpret a patent claim is a key issue in deciding whether an infringement of the patent occurred there. When the Federal Circuit decided Hilton Davis Chemical Co., v. Warner Jenkinson Co., 62 F. 3d 1512, (Fed. Cir. 1995), it used "insubstantial difference" test to decide whether the accused product or process infringed the patented product or process. That is, if the accused product or process as a whole is the same one as the product or process covered by the patent, there is an infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, otherwise there is no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents. However, this is more close to the central claiming principle in interpretation of a patent claim, which is contrary to the peripheral claiming principle used by U. S. courts for a long period.
As a whole下適用均等論的話，較接近中心限定主義。然而這與美國法院長期使用之周邊限定主義衝突。
9/12/2005
什麼叫「All element rule」？（三）以及「必要」是“非必要”（二）
以這一篇文章「One Plus One Can Equal One – In Patent Law」，作為這一整個主題的結束。
One major principle stressed by the Court is adherence to the “all-elements” rule, requiring just the determination of equivalency proceed on an element-by-element inquiry, rather than comparing the overall similarity of the accused device as a whole to the claims. This is to ensure that the application of the doctrine, even as to an individual element, is not allowed such broad play as to effectively eliminate that element in its entirety. When applying the test, the Court said, “[a] focus on individual elements and a special vigilance against allowing the concept of equivalence to eliminate completely any such elements should reduce considerably the imprecision of whatever language is used.”
“element-by-element inquiry”是為了防止專利權人擴大均等論的適用，有效地刪除一個元件主張均等論。
Does this mean that when an accused device entirely lacks an element, one gets away with it no matter how similar the device is to the claims in other respects?
接著看有名的Festo案子，這案子常聽到，第一次看到它還有這個爭點，先前還一直再找有關利用均等論，來有效刪去 claim中無效“非必要”元件的判例，原來“遠在天邊近在眼前”，從很多人口中聽到這個案子，卻沒有聽到這爭點。
Instead, the accused infringer argued that because its two-way sealing ring was only one element, it did not meet the doctrine of equivalents requirement of the “all-elements” rule, and so was summarily not equivalent to the pair of rings in the patent claim. The court decided against the infringer and held that the accused device was not required to have all the components of the claimed invention for the device to infringe. Did this violate the “all elements” rule? Not so, said the court, “this rule does not require a one-to-one correspondence of components.”
侵權人爭論他的元件只有一個，而請求項卻說有兩個，因此不符合“all-elements” rule，不適用均等論，必竟均等論要 element-by-element inquiry 對吧。法院卻認為「this rule does not require a one-to-one correspondence of components」。所以二個也可以等於一個。
這一篇文章真的很值得讀，解開了我很多的疑惑。接下來，看看作者怎麼解說“element”和“limitation”：
After this, one is tempted to look at elements and limitations in three different ways. First, a limitation is an element, in which case, the doctrine collapses into nothing more than a literal infringement test. Second, a limitation is not essential to an element; therefore so long as the process recited a pH step, there would be infringement. Third, a limitation may be essential to defining the element, in which case evidence is required in order to determine whether a person skilled in the art would have known of the limitation’s functional interchangeability with the one in the claims.
Never one to make bold statements, the Federal Circuit opted for the third choice which, after all, was the proper choice. At least, it is preferable to sleightful wordplay.
看到這個字「sleightful wordplay」，讓我不覺莞爾。
One major principle stressed by the Court is adherence to the “all-elements” rule, requiring just the determination of equivalency proceed on an element-by-element inquiry, rather than comparing the overall similarity of the accused device as a whole to the claims. This is to ensure that the application of the doctrine, even as to an individual element, is not allowed such broad play as to effectively eliminate that element in its entirety. When applying the test, the Court said, “[a] focus on individual elements and a special vigilance against allowing the concept of equivalence to eliminate completely any such elements should reduce considerably the imprecision of whatever language is used.”
“element-by-element inquiry”是為了防止專利權人擴大均等論的適用，有效地刪除一個元件主張均等論。
Does this mean that when an accused device entirely lacks an element, one gets away with it no matter how similar the device is to the claims in other respects?
接著看有名的Festo案子，這案子常聽到，第一次看到它還有這個爭點，先前還一直再找有關利用均等論，來有效刪去 claim中無效“非必要”元件的判例，原來“遠在天邊近在眼前”，從很多人口中聽到這個案子，卻沒有聽到這爭點。
Instead, the accused infringer argued that because its two-way sealing ring was only one element, it did not meet the doctrine of equivalents requirement of the “all-elements” rule, and so was summarily not equivalent to the pair of rings in the patent claim. The court decided against the infringer and held that the accused device was not required to have all the components of the claimed invention for the device to infringe. Did this violate the “all elements” rule? Not so, said the court, “this rule does not require a one-to-one correspondence of components.”
侵權人爭論他的元件只有一個，而請求項卻說有兩個，因此不符合“all-elements” rule，不適用均等論，必竟均等論要 element-by-element inquiry 對吧。法院卻認為「this rule does not require a one-to-one correspondence of components」。所以二個也可以等於一個。
這一篇文章真的很值得讀，解開了我很多的疑惑。接下來，看看作者怎麼解說“element”和“limitation”：
After this, one is tempted to look at elements and limitations in three different ways. First, a limitation is an element, in which case, the doctrine collapses into nothing more than a literal infringement test. Second, a limitation is not essential to an element; therefore so long as the process recited a pH step, there would be infringement. Third, a limitation may be essential to defining the element, in which case evidence is required in order to determine whether a person skilled in the art would have known of the limitation’s functional interchangeability with the one in the claims.
Never one to make bold statements, the Federal Circuit opted for the third choice which, after all, was the proper choice. At least, it is preferable to sleightful wordplay.
看到這個字「sleightful wordplay」，讓我不覺莞爾。
原來還有人主張「必要」是“非必要”的
常常和同事吵“必要”和“非必要”，今天看到這篇文章，覺得還真是有趣，而且“感到興奮”，自己所支持的想法得到了支持。
來自於這一篇文章（按一下）：
Infringement analysis
In respect of the comparison of an alleged infringing product or process with the patent as claimed, a principle reminiscent of the all-element rule applies in which all the essential elements as recited in the claim need to be found therein. A principle similar to the doctrine of equivalents is also proposed whereby a claim that does not literally read on an alleged infringing product or process may still be found to be infringed if equivalent technical features are found therein upon analysis.
However there is also an important new concept in infringement analysis under the suggested principle of "unnecessary recitation" in which elements or limitations explicitly recited in an independent claim may be deleted by the court if they are viewed as obvious and redundant features that do not contribute to the essential function of the claimed product or processes. In evaluating whether a feature is "redundant", Part 50 of the guideline suggests the following consideration:
Is the feature under consideration one that distinguishes the claimed invention from prior art products as of the priority date, that is, whether the deletion of the feature under consideration would render the claim lacking in novelty or inventiveness as compared to the prior art;
whether the feature under consideration is essential for the functioning of the invention to achieve the solution of the technical problem to be solved; and
whether the technical feature under consideration falls under the principle of prosecution history estoppel.
The guideline further states that the court should not apply this principle of unnecessary recitation according to its own initiative, but rather apply it based on evidence produced by the plaintiff and by application thereof. Parts 50 and 53, however, caution that the application of this doctrine is more suitable for invention patent rights and should not be applied to the infringement analysis of utility models with relatively low inventiveness.
法院不應自行開啟適用“非必要”元件的主張，而且也不適用“新型”專利，因為新型專利的進步性考量較低。
Although this guideline contains a suggestion that may render claim scope uncertain and ambiguous, such a detailed suggestion is a step in the right direction towards in-depth infringement analysis. Time will tell whether these proposed principles will be adopted on a broader basis and whether the uncertainties introduced will be reconsidered and removed as the judicial development progresses.
「render claim scope uncertain and ambiguous」是非必要主張的缺點，不過把它捨棄的話似乎不合“公平”，我覺得如果給它比“均等論”更嚴格的適用條件，對“不懂專利”的個人發明人而言，應該是一個保障。
來自於這一篇文章（按一下）：
Infringement analysis
In respect of the comparison of an alleged infringing product or process with the patent as claimed, a principle reminiscent of the all-element rule applies in which all the essential elements as recited in the claim need to be found therein. A principle similar to the doctrine of equivalents is also proposed whereby a claim that does not literally read on an alleged infringing product or process may still be found to be infringed if equivalent technical features are found therein upon analysis.
However there is also an important new concept in infringement analysis under the suggested principle of "unnecessary recitation" in which elements or limitations explicitly recited in an independent claim may be deleted by the court if they are viewed as obvious and redundant features that do not contribute to the essential function of the claimed product or processes. In evaluating whether a feature is "redundant", Part 50 of the guideline suggests the following consideration:
Is the feature under consideration one that distinguishes the claimed invention from prior art products as of the priority date, that is, whether the deletion of the feature under consideration would render the claim lacking in novelty or inventiveness as compared to the prior art;
whether the feature under consideration is essential for the functioning of the invention to achieve the solution of the technical problem to be solved; and
whether the technical feature under consideration falls under the principle of prosecution history estoppel.
The guideline further states that the court should not apply this principle of unnecessary recitation according to its own initiative, but rather apply it based on evidence produced by the plaintiff and by application thereof. Parts 50 and 53, however, caution that the application of this doctrine is more suitable for invention patent rights and should not be applied to the infringement analysis of utility models with relatively low inventiveness.
法院不應自行開啟適用“非必要”元件的主張，而且也不適用“新型”專利，因為新型專利的進步性考量較低。
Although this guideline contains a suggestion that may render claim scope uncertain and ambiguous, such a detailed suggestion is a step in the right direction towards in-depth infringement analysis. Time will tell whether these proposed principles will be adopted on a broader basis and whether the uncertainties introduced will be reconsidered and removed as the judicial development progresses.
「render claim scope uncertain and ambiguous」是非必要主張的缺點，不過把它捨棄的話似乎不合“公平”，我覺得如果給它比“均等論”更嚴格的適用條件，對“不懂專利”的個人發明人而言，應該是一個保障。
什麼叫「All element rule」？（三）
全要件原則（ALL ELEMENT RULE）
舊的專利侵害鑑定基準：
分析專利權之申請專利範圍其所有構成要件及被告對象之所有構成要件並逐一加以比較。
工業財產權論叢（專利侵害與迴避設計篇）－羅炳榮 著
一、全要件原則(All element rule)
簡單來講，正是於比對分析侵權時，對於主張專利權之申請專利範圍之所有限制條件，因此，侵權認定之門檻或前提，必須是待鑑定物品至少具有與申請專利範圍(Claim)對應之所有(All)限制條件(Limitation)，始有侵權之虞。
日經BP知財新聞
ペ ンウォルト事件（1987年）では，均等論においてもオールエレメントルール（all element rule）が適用されることが確認された。すなわち，特許発明のクレームに記載された構成要件（element）と被疑侵害品の構成要件とが個々の構成要 件毎に比較されて（element by element），構成要件毎に均等の範囲も判断される。
ワーナージェンキンソン事件（1997年） では，「均等論はクレームの個々の構成要件（individual elements）に適用すべきであって，クレーム発明に対して全体的に（as a whole）適用すべきではない」と判示され，クレーム全体に対する均等論の適用が否定された。
1987年：均等論下也應適用 all element rule，亦即 claim所記載的構成要件與被疑侵害物的構成要件間，進行 element by element 的均等比對。
1997年：均等論應對 individual elements 來適用，不應以 as a whole 來適用。
一、為什麼要 element by element 比對，不能整體觀之？
二、還是找不到 element 和 limitation 的差別在哪？最讓我在意的是要怎麼切 element ？連結關係或是功能屬於 element 嗎？還是屬於 limitation 呢？
三、原來還有人在討論均等論應該用「as a whole 來適用」的啊，想都沒想到，看來我被“教育”的太徹底了。有興趣的人可以參考「Ｈughes Aircradt case 、Corning case、TI case 」這些篇判例。
===========
不 知怎地，對「All element rule」突然感到那麼多的興趣，一直有一種非要解開它迷底的感覺，所以……從原本準備好要睡覺的床上爬起，決定利用google搜尋其他人對「All element rule」的解譯。我也在問我自己這些是一定得現在做嗎？明天在做不能嗎？不知該怎麼說，就是有一種非做不可的感覺。
舊的專利侵害鑑定基準：
分析專利權之申請專利範圍其所有構成要件及被告對象之所有構成要件並逐一加以比較。
工業財產權論叢（專利侵害與迴避設計篇）－羅炳榮 著
一、全要件原則(All element rule)
簡單來講，正是於比對分析侵權時，對於主張專利權之申請專利範圍之所有限制條件，因此，侵權認定之門檻或前提，必須是待鑑定物品至少具有與申請專利範圍(Claim)對應之所有(All)限制條件(Limitation)，始有侵權之虞。
日經BP知財新聞
ペ ンウォルト事件（1987年）では，均等論においてもオールエレメントルール（all element rule）が適用されることが確認された。すなわち，特許発明のクレームに記載された構成要件（element）と被疑侵害品の構成要件とが個々の構成要 件毎に比較されて（element by element），構成要件毎に均等の範囲も判断される。
ワーナージェンキンソン事件（1997年） では，「均等論はクレームの個々の構成要件（individual elements）に適用すべきであって，クレーム発明に対して全体的に（as a whole）適用すべきではない」と判示され，クレーム全体に対する均等論の適用が否定された。
1987年：均等論下也應適用 all element rule，亦即 claim所記載的構成要件與被疑侵害物的構成要件間，進行 element by element 的均等比對。
1997年：均等論應對 individual elements 來適用，不應以 as a whole 來適用。
一、為什麼要 element by element 比對，不能整體觀之？
二、還是找不到 element 和 limitation 的差別在哪？最讓我在意的是要怎麼切 element ？連結關係或是功能屬於 element 嗎？還是屬於 limitation 呢？
三、原來還有人在討論均等論應該用「as a whole 來適用」的啊，想都沒想到，看來我被“教育”的太徹底了。有興趣的人可以參考「Ｈughes Aircradt case 、Corning case、TI case 」這些篇判例。
===========
不 知怎地，對「All element rule」突然感到那麼多的興趣，一直有一種非要解開它迷底的感覺，所以……從原本準備好要睡覺的床上爬起，決定利用google搜尋其他人對「All element rule」的解譯。我也在問我自己這些是一定得現在做嗎？明天在做不能嗎？不知該怎麼說，就是有一種非做不可的感覺。
9/11/2005
inducement infringement 要件
(CAFC 04-1396, August 22, 2005).
Under section 271(b), “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. §271(b). “In order to succeed on a claim of inducement, the patentee must show, first that there has been direct infringement,” and “second, that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement.” Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1304-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).4 “While proof of intent is necessary, direct evidence is not required; rather, circumstantial evidence may suffice.” Water Techs. Corp v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
要證明別人 intent 真的滿難的。
Under section 271(b), “[w]hoever actively induces infringement of a patent shall be liable as an infringer.” 35 U.S.C. §271(b). “In order to succeed on a claim of inducement, the patentee must show, first that there has been direct infringement,” and “second, that the alleged infringer knowingly induced infringement and possessed specific intent to encourage another’s infringement.” Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1304-05 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citations omitted).4 “While proof of intent is necessary, direct evidence is not required; rather, circumstantial evidence may suffice.” Water Techs. Corp v. Calco, Ltd., 850 F.2d 660, 668 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
要證明別人 intent 真的滿難的。
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」。
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」。
檔案歷史禁反言的適用範圍
檔案歷史禁反言的適用範圍
In Aquatex v Techniche Solutions (CAFC 05-1088)
Prosecution history estoppel can prevent a patentee from relying on the doctrine of equivalents when the patentee relinquishes subject matter during the prosecution of the patent, either by amendment or argument. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel limits the doctrine of equivalents when an applicant makes a narrowing amendment for purposes of patentability, or clearly and unmistakably surrenders subject matter by arguments made to an examiner.” Salazar, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13517, at *6; see Festo II, 535 U.S. at 736 (narrowing amendment for purposes of patentability); Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Communication Labs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (argument-based estoppel).
曾經見過“argument-based estoppel”？我好像看過又好像沒有看過，就算是看過也不知道它是什麼意思，現在終於知道了。
不 僅 amendment 會適用禁反言，連 argument 也會而以 argument 適用禁反言的就叫做“argument-based estoppel”。但是要適用“argument-based estoppel”，檔案歷史就必須“ evince（顯示出） a clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter.”，因此模擬兩可的話就不能適用。
To invoke argument-based estoppel, the prosecution history “must evince a clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter.” Pharmacia, 170 F.3d at 1377 (internal quotation omitted). To determine if subject matter has been relinquished, an objective test is applied, inquiring “whether a competitor would reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered the relevant subject matter.” Cybor Corp., 138 F.3d at 1457.
In Aquatex v Techniche Solutions (CAFC 05-1088)
Prosecution history estoppel can prevent a patentee from relying on the doctrine of equivalents when the patentee relinquishes subject matter during the prosecution of the patent, either by amendment or argument. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan Pharm., Inc., 170 F.3d 1373, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “The doctrine of prosecution history estoppel limits the doctrine of equivalents when an applicant makes a narrowing amendment for purposes of patentability, or clearly and unmistakably surrenders subject matter by arguments made to an examiner.” Salazar, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 13517, at *6; see Festo II, 535 U.S. at 736 (narrowing amendment for purposes of patentability); Eagle Comtronics, Inc. v. Arrow Communication Labs., Inc., 305 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (argument-based estoppel).
曾經見過“argument-based estoppel”？我好像看過又好像沒有看過，就算是看過也不知道它是什麼意思，現在終於知道了。
不 僅 amendment 會適用禁反言，連 argument 也會而以 argument 適用禁反言的就叫做“argument-based estoppel”。但是要適用“argument-based estoppel”，檔案歷史就必須“ evince（顯示出） a clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter.”，因此模擬兩可的話就不能適用。
To invoke argument-based estoppel, the prosecution history “must evince a clear and unmistakable surrender of subject matter.” Pharmacia, 170 F.3d at 1377 (internal quotation omitted). To determine if subject matter has been relinquished, an objective test is applied, inquiring “whether a competitor would reasonably believe that the applicant had surrendered the relevant subject matter.” Cybor Corp., 138 F.3d at 1457.
9/09/2005
The construction of a claim's term
Network Commerce v. Microsoft (Fed. Cir. 2005).
來看看法官們在 claim construction 時是怎麼解譯一個 term ，也順便看看一個 term，它在訴訟中，會出現多少的解譯方式（參照上判決連結，僅貼出部分段落）：
The claims also assume that the “download component” is a component of a larger software system, that is, the download component does not alone direct the computer hardware to perform the designated tasks. The difficulty is that the claim language is not clear as to what other programs are to be used with the “download component.”
找出解譯 term 的困難處，預先為解譯找個方向。
We construe a claim term as having its “ordinary and customary meaning,” that is, “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In some cases, it is possible to construe a claim term by applying “the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. “Download component” is not a claim term amenable to construction in this manner because it has no commonly understood meaning reflected in general dictionaries or similar sources. We may also rely on a term’s “particular meaning in a field of art” when construing claims. Id. As the parties seem to agree, the term “download component” does not have a specialized meaning in the relevant art. Microsoft urges that “download component” does not have a particular meaning in the computer art; and that the term does not appear in computer dictionaries and treatises.
當沒有commonly understood meaning 時才用term’s “particular meaning in a field of art”。
Network Commerce also agrees that a definition of the term “download component” as a whole does not exist, but invites the court to combine individual dictionary definitions of “download” and “component.” Under that construction, any part of a system involved in the transfer of data from one computer to another would be a download component. This is not a tenable theory in light of the specification.
那用字典來組合這樣的解譯方式可以嗎？（也算是一個用來解譯 term 的方法。）不過最後還是得回到說明書中如何使用這個字，來進行解譯才是。
整 理這一篇是因為判例中解譯一個term的方式提出了好幾種，其中用combine individual dictionary definitions of “download” and “component”，是我潛意識下所使用的方式。就當作用來提醒自己隨時注意說明書對一個 term 的使用方式。
PS：
Coombs’ declaration provides scant support for Network Commerce’s position. As we recently reaffirmed in Phillips, “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Here Coombs does not support his conclusion with any references to industry publications or other independent sources. Moreover, expert testimony at odds with the intrinsic evidence must be disregarded. Id. (“[A] court should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by . . . the written record of the patent.”). That is the case here.
at odds：不一致。
“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.”
專家證詞如果沒有supported的話，不足為取。
來看看法官們在 claim construction 時是怎麼解譯一個 term ，也順便看看一個 term，它在訴訟中，會出現多少的解譯方式（參照上判決連結，僅貼出部分段落）：
The claims also assume that the “download component” is a component of a larger software system, that is, the download component does not alone direct the computer hardware to perform the designated tasks. The difficulty is that the claim language is not clear as to what other programs are to be used with the “download component.”
找出解譯 term 的困難處，預先為解譯找個方向。
We construe a claim term as having its “ordinary and customary meaning,” that is, “the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1313. In some cases, it is possible to construe a claim term by applying “the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.” Id. at 1314. “Download component” is not a claim term amenable to construction in this manner because it has no commonly understood meaning reflected in general dictionaries or similar sources. We may also rely on a term’s “particular meaning in a field of art” when construing claims. Id. As the parties seem to agree, the term “download component” does not have a specialized meaning in the relevant art. Microsoft urges that “download component” does not have a particular meaning in the computer art; and that the term does not appear in computer dictionaries and treatises.
當沒有commonly understood meaning 時才用term’s “particular meaning in a field of art”。
Network Commerce also agrees that a definition of the term “download component” as a whole does not exist, but invites the court to combine individual dictionary definitions of “download” and “component.” Under that construction, any part of a system involved in the transfer of data from one computer to another would be a download component. This is not a tenable theory in light of the specification.
那用字典來組合這樣的解譯方式可以嗎？（也算是一個用來解譯 term 的方法。）不過最後還是得回到說明書中如何使用這個字，來進行解譯才是。
整 理這一篇是因為判例中解譯一個term的方式提出了好幾種，其中用combine individual dictionary definitions of “download” and “component”，是我潛意識下所使用的方式。就當作用來提醒自己隨時注意說明書對一個 term 的使用方式。
PS：
Coombs’ declaration provides scant support for Network Commerce’s position. As we recently reaffirmed in Phillips, “conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.” Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1318. Here Coombs does not support his conclusion with any references to industry publications or other independent sources. Moreover, expert testimony at odds with the intrinsic evidence must be disregarded. Id. (“[A] court should discount any expert testimony that is clearly at odds with the claim construction mandated by . . . the written record of the patent.”). That is the case here.
at odds：不一致。
“conclusory, unsupported assertions by experts as to the definition of a claim term are not useful to a court.”
專家證詞如果沒有supported的話，不足為取。
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。
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。
9/05/2005
均等論的三段測不了試
均等論的三段測不了試
Freedman Seating Company v. American Seating Company and Hi-Tech Seating Products, Inc., (No. 04-1216, -1248; August 11, 2005)
Specifically, the patent claims that the movable end of the seatbase support member is “slidably mounted” to the seatbase. In contrast, the support member of the accused product is “rotatably mounted” to the seatbase.
“slidably mounted”與“rotatably mounted”是否均等？
地院認為： perform substantially the same function in substantially the same manner to achieve substantially the same result.
CAFC continues: “Freedman's argument would mean that any support member capable of allowing translational and rotational motion would be equivalent to a support member “slidably mounted to said seatbase,” which reads “slidably mounted” completely out of the claims. This is precisely the type of DOE overextension that the claim vitiation doctrine is intended to prevent.”
關鍵字：completely out of the claims、the type of DOE overextension、the claim vitiation doctrine
我想這就是這篇均等論的適用文章所說的「“The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to erase ‘meaningful structural and functional limitations of the claim on which the public is entitled to rely in avoiding infringement.’”」吧。
Freedman Seating Company v. American Seating Company and Hi-Tech Seating Products, Inc., (No. 04-1216, -1248; August 11, 2005)
Specifically, the patent claims that the movable end of the seatbase support member is “slidably mounted” to the seatbase. In contrast, the support member of the accused product is “rotatably mounted” to the seatbase.
“slidably mounted”與“rotatably mounted”是否均等？
地院認為： perform substantially the same function in substantially the same manner to achieve substantially the same result.
CAFC continues: “Freedman's argument would mean that any support member capable of allowing translational and rotational motion would be equivalent to a support member “slidably mounted to said seatbase,” which reads “slidably mounted” completely out of the claims. This is precisely the type of DOE overextension that the claim vitiation doctrine is intended to prevent.”
關鍵字：completely out of the claims、the type of DOE overextension、the claim vitiation doctrine
我想這就是這篇均等論的適用文章所說的「“The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to erase ‘meaningful structural and functional limitations of the claim on which the public is entitled to rely in avoiding infringement.’”」吧。
9/02/2005
均等論的適用
均等論的適用
http://fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1408.pdf
“The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to erase ‘meaningful structural and functional limitations of the claim on which the public is entitled to rely in avoiding infringement.’” Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Conopco, Inc. v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 46 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
今天整理自己資料時，看到自己以前曾印下來卻只看一點點的判決，重新翻了一次之後，看到上面的一段話。突然想到這會不會與所謂的“必要”與“非必要”有關？
申請專利範圍：A+B+C+e
侵權物：A+B+C
其中，e為非必要元件
解譯申請專利範圍時，可否將其解譯成A+B+C’，其中C’= C+e。接著以均等論解譯成「C實質上等於C’」？
如果這個小e被解譯成「meaningful structural and functional limitations of the claim」，我想應該就沒有機會了吧！但不禁想問什麼是「meaningful」？
同事糾正了我一個邏輯問題：
因為「The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to erase ‘meaningful structural」，所以當 structural 為 non-meaningful 的時候，「The doctrine of equivalents can be used to erase ‘non-meaningful structural」對嗎？不對，這不是『若且唯若』。
====
2008/03/18
另一判例：
majority ，而這個字的意思是大部分，也就是超過 50%。
若被解釋為小於50%的話，就會讓這個majority變得不meaningful了。
http://blog.pixnet.net/patent/post/10483716
http://fedcir.gov/opinions/03-1408.pdf
“The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to erase ‘meaningful structural and functional limitations of the claim on which the public is entitled to rely in avoiding infringement.’” Sage Prods., Inc. v. Devon Indus., Inc., 126 F.3d 1420, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting Conopco, Inc. v. May Dep’t Stores Co., 46 F.3d 1556, 1562 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
今天整理自己資料時，看到自己以前曾印下來卻只看一點點的判決，重新翻了一次之後，看到上面的一段話。突然想到這會不會與所謂的“必要”與“非必要”有關？
申請專利範圍：A+B+C+e
侵權物：A+B+C
其中，e為非必要元件
解譯申請專利範圍時，可否將其解譯成A+B+C’，其中C’= C+e。接著以均等論解譯成「C實質上等於C’」？
如果這個小e被解譯成「meaningful structural and functional limitations of the claim」，我想應該就沒有機會了吧！但不禁想問什麼是「meaningful」？
同事糾正了我一個邏輯問題：
因為「The doctrine of equivalents cannot be used to erase ‘meaningful structural」，所以當 structural 為 non-meaningful 的時候，「The doctrine of equivalents can be used to erase ‘non-meaningful structural」對嗎？不對，這不是『若且唯若』。
====
2008/03/18
另一判例：
majority ，而這個字的意思是大部分，也就是超過 50%。
若被解釋為小於50%的話，就會讓這個majority變得不meaningful了。
http://blog.pixnet.net/patent/post/10483716
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)