使用功能手段用語之對價的要求

http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2007/09/without_means_1.html

Mitchell had pointed to a reference from the specification for supporting documentation, but both courts found the prior art reference "both too broad and not linked to the "means for causing" limitation."

• The mere mention of a complicated integrated circuit, comprised of hundreds if not thousands of circuits, is much too broad to sufficiently indicate the precise "means for causing" structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostic Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("It is important to determine whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose the structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that structure.").

Mitchell attempted to "to identify structure in a variety of generalized passages in the specification," but nothing specific to hang the means hat on.

• "[I]n order for a claim to meet the particularity requirement of ¶ 2, the corresponding structure(s) of a means-plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the written description in such a manner that one skilled in the art will know and understand what structure corresponds to the means limitation."  Thus, the statute requires more than just the possibility that an artisan of ordinary skill may be able to figure out the corresponding structure. The quid pro quo for using a means-plus-function limitation requires specificity in reciting structure and linking that structure to the limitation. Id. Mitchell does not carry out its part of the quid pro quo bargain.

Mitchell 從說明書中指出一參考文獻用以作為支持文件，但兩法庭發覺習知前案皆太廣且沒有連結該“導致手段”的限制條件。

• 僅提及一複雜的積體電路，其沒有包含數千也包含數百種電路，則範圍為太廣，不足以向該行業者精確地指出“導致手段”的結構。. 見 Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostic Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2003) （判斷該行業者是否能了解說明書本身所揭露的結構；而非單僅是判斷該行業者是否能夠實施該結構，這是非常重要的。）

Mitchell 亦試圖“指出說明書中多種的一般化通道的結構”，但卻不能明確地為該些結構扣上“手段”的帽子。

• 為使請求項符合第2段的特別要件，功能手段用語之限制條件的對應結構，必須以該行業者能夠知道並了解什麼結構對應該手段限制條件的方式，揭露於書面的說明中。Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999)。因此，法定要件，要求不單僅是該行業者能夠找出對應結構。使用功能手段用語的對價係要求：指出結構的明確性；以及將該結構連結至限制條件的明確性。Mitchell 沒有完成他那部分所應付出之對價的交換條件。

---------------------------------------------

法律用語的 find 意思為根據事實的認為，實在不知道如何翻譯正確，暫定“發覺”。

means plus function：單純的揭露結構是不夠的，要“Link”。