4/18/2008

在寫程式時,需要用到「正規表示法」搜尋文用,可以參照下列網址。

http://120.105.184.250/cswang/thit/Linux/RegularExpression.htm

https://atedev.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/%E6%AD%A3%E8%A6%8F%E8%A1%A8%E7%A4%BA%E5%BC%8F-regular-expression/

https://regexone.com/


https://regexone.com/references/python

這個網頁可以直接測試「正規表示法」
https://regex101.com/

3/31/2008

Claim Differentiation 權利範圍差異化理論

這篇原文,來自日本知財研究所的研究報告書關於“均等論”的一篇研究報告 ,一開始我也覺得很奇怪為什麼會“均等論”與“權利範圍差異化理論”一起討論比較。

適用される場合
A) 異なるクレームは異なる範囲をカバーする(*27)。
B) 従属クレームの限定は、それが従属するところの独立クレームには読み込まない(*28)。
C) 従属クレームに対応した実施形態や機能と異なるものが開示されている場合、独立クレームはそれを含むことが考慮される。(異なる独立クレーム間の関係の場合も同様)(*29)

適用情況
a、相異的請求項包含相異的範圍。
b、附屬項的限定,不應被讀進其所附屬的獨立項。
c、於揭示相異於對應附屬項的實施樣態或機能的內容時,視為獨立項包含該內容(於相異獨立項間之關係的情況下亦然)。

適用されない場合
D) 文言表現の違いのみで内容が同じ場合は、理論は適用されない(*30)。
E) 明細書開示の内容、審査経過による主張から決まる範囲をこの理論で超えることはできない(*31)。
F) 二つの異なるクレーム間の相違が単に付加的でない場合、理論は適用されない(*32)。
G) 機能的文言による「構造的均等物」の推定がこの理論に反する場合は、機能的文言による推定の方が優先される(§112パラグラフ6の推定の方が、Claim Differentiationの推定より強い)(*33)。

不適用情況
d、 僅為文字表現的差異,內容則相同時,不適用此理論。
e、不能夠以此理論,使權利範圍超出依據說明書的揭示內容、審查過程的主張所決定的範圍。
f、 兩相異請求項間的不同處,並非單僅是附加的情況時,不適用此理論。
g、 依功能性語言決定的「構造的均等物」的推定,相反於此理論時,優先考慮依功能性語言的推定(112第6段的推定優先於Claim Differentiation的推定。)。

上記A)~C)うち、B)の場合が一番強い推定が働く(*34)。つまり、この理論の基本的な使い方は、B)を利用し独立項に読み込みたくない限定を従属項として明記しておくことになる。また、すべてのクレーム間で対応する実施形態や機能が異なるように解釈される(*35)ため、任意の二つのクレーム間の関係として与えてもよい。

上述a~c中,b情況具有最強的推定。亦即,此理論的基本使用方法為,利用b情況將不希望被讀進獨立項的限制條件明確記載成附屬項。另外,為使所有項求項之間,被解釋成相異的對應實施樣態或機能,可以利用此理論付予任意二請求項間的關係(怎麼翻都翻不順總覺此句原文少了點什麼)。


しかし、あくまで二つのクレーム間の相対関係を基本としているので、F)のように両者の違いが一義的に決まらないと、他方も決まらない。また、この推定は決して強いものではなく、その他の根拠から適正と考えられる範囲を超えることはできず、その場合は複数のクレームが同じ範囲を示すこともある(*36)。

然而,最終兩者請求項間的相對關係才是基本,如f情況不能無疑義地決定兩者的差異時,另一方亦不能決定。又,此推定絕非強的推定,不能夠超出從其他根據適當地考量後的範圍,此情況下,有時會有複數個請求項具有相同的範圍。


また、独立クレームが機能的クレームの場合はG)に示した機能的クレームの構造的均等物との関係から、機能的文言の一形態としての構造クレームは不要と思われる。すなわち、機能的限定の構造的均等物が実施形態に限定解釈された場合、機能的文言による推定の方が強いためにClaim Differentiationの推定では機能的限定の範囲を拡大できず、構造クレームが意味をなさないためである。この場合は、機能的クレームの構造的均等物を拡大させることの方が重要になる。

獨立項為功能請求項時,不應利用與g情況所示之功能請求項之構造的均等物間的關係,解釋成構造的請求項作為功能性語言的一樣態。亦即,功能限定之構造的均等物被限定解釋成實施樣態時,依功能語言的推定較強,所以不能利用Claim Differentiation的推定擴大功能限定的範圍,不能視為具有構造請求項的意思。此情況,擴大功能請求項之構造的均等物較為重要。

(*27) 384 F.2d 391, 404, 413-414 (Ct.Cl. 1967).
(*28) 403 F.3d 1364, 1370 (Fed.Cir. 2005).
(*29) 415 F.3d 1303, 1324-27 (Fed.Cir. 2005).
(*30) 384 F.2d at 407 (Ct.Cl. 1967).
(*31) 831 F.2d 1017, 1023-24 (1987).
(*32) 73 F.3d 1573, 1580-81 (Fed.Cir. 1996).
(*33) 424 F.3d 1293, 1304 (Fed.Cir. 2005).
(*34) 413 F.3d at 1368-69 (Fed.Cir.2005).
(*35) 403 F.3d at 1370 (Fed.Cir.2005).
(*36) 413 F.3d at 1369 (Fed.Cir.2005).
(*37) 最高裁平成10年2月24日 判決民集52巻1号113頁 平6(オ)1083号「ボールスプライン軸受上告審」。

3/30/2008

混合類別型請求項

混合類別型請求項   Mixed Claim Types

撰寫請求項時,應留意於此請求項中是否同時記載了“裝置限制條件”及“方法限制條件”,其有可能會被視為不明確。

Manual of Patent Examination Procedure. § 2173.05(p)(II) (1999) ("A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.")

MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II) 記載有:單一的請求項同時請求“裝置”及“使用該裝置的方法步驟”,係為不明確,不符合 35 U.S.C. 112 第二段規定。

The November 2005 IPXL Holdings v. Amazon CAFC ruling found claim 25 in the notorious Amazon 1-click patent (6,149,055) indefinite.

25. The system of claim 2 [including an input means] wherein the predicted transaction information comprises both a transaction type and transaction parameters associated with that transaction type, and the user uses the input means to either change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction type and transaction parameters.

The problem was that the claim could have been read either as a system claim or method claim.

Thus, it is unclear whether infringement of claim 25 occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information or uses the input means to accept a displayed transaction.

上述請求項的問題為,此請求項可以被解讀成為系統請求項、或是方法請求項。因此,是在有人創造一個能夠允許使用者改變預測的交易資訊或接受所顯示之交易的系統時,發生侵權請求項25行為;還是當使用者實際使用輸入裝置改變預測的交易資訊或使用輸入裝置接受所顯示之交易時,發生侵權請求項25行為?關於此點不明確。

心得:

〉●從文言上來看是可以解譯成「當使用者實際使用輸入裝置改變預測的交易資訊或使用輸入裝置接受所顯示之交易時的系統」,從這一點來看,其實一點也不會不明確。不知為何這種解譯方式不被接受?

〉●想要使用“功能限制條件”來限定“裝置”的請求項時應小心並再確認這樣的撰寫方式,是否會被解讀為混合類別型請求項。

〉●似乎僅需將原請求項修改成「the system allows the user to use the input means to」,這樣就不會被視為不明確了,差幾個字就差那麼多難以想像。建議以後撰寫請求項時,多多使用“用以”、“藉以使”等用語。

〉●不過,上述的情況和 MPEP 2106所記載的內容,兩者間滿容易混淆

MPEP 2106 

For example, a claimed invention may be a combination of devices that appear to be directed to a machine and one or more steps of the functions performed by the machine. Such instances of mixed attributes, although potentially confusing as to which category of patentable subject matter the claim belongs, does not affect the analysis to be performed by USPTO personnel. Note that an apparatus claim with process steps is not classified as a "hybrid" claim; instead, it is simply an apparatus claim including functional limitations. See, e.g., R.A.C.C. Indus. v. Stun-Tech, Inc., 178 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (unpublished).

應注意,具有方法步驟的裝置請求項,不被分類為混合類別型請求項,相反地,它僅是一種包含功能限制條件的裝置請求項。

心得:

〉●要分清楚此兩者間的界線,也許可以參考The Patent Prospector的意見。

The cutting edge for an non-statutory dual-matter claim is whether the claim could be reasonably read "either-or" - interpretable within two of the four categories of patentable subject matter: "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" (35 U.S.C. §101). Another viewpoint would be to answer the question: what is crucial, specifically novel, about the claim that merits its patentability? If the answer lies in a different claim type than the claim nominally is, the claim is invalid.

另一觀點為回答下述問題:使請求項維持其可專利性,什麼限制條件是重要的,尤其是針對新穎性而言?如果所得答案為此請求項落入了不同於它名目上的類別時,則此請求項無效。

3/24/2008

進步性的答辯方向(二)

進步性的答辯方向(二)

連結(the patent prospector)中亦列出了將來能夠用來進行進步性答辯的方向。

1、請求項源自不可預期的效果。當指出先前技藝方式無法產生相似的效果時,這是最佳的使用時機。

2、先前技藝所使用之被展現的特性,相異於所請求之發明所達成的特性。此可視為不可預期之效果的變化。

3、所舉出之先前技藝,對所請求之發明提供相反教示。當先前技術所採用之技術方向,係達成相異的結果;使用相異的手段或相異的程序時,這是最佳的使用時機。

4、所舉出之先前技藝的組合,產生相異的效果,因此不會產生所請求的發明。

5、當證據顯示,所舉出之先前技藝的組合係以某種方式相異於所請求的發明時,可以爭論,所請求的發明並非一種組合。

6、審查員適用了後見之明的偏見,因為所請求之發明其所欲解決的問題,係利用先前技術以相異的文脈來看待,並且從該(先前技術的)文脈來看,此解決方案不會被視為顯而易知的。替代地(Alternately),於先前技藝的架構中,所述之組合不會被認為是一種合理可預想的成功組合。當相反教示的爭論不能被證實時,這比較是一種微妙的變化型。

7、組合是源自相差很大的技術領域,而先前技藝的應用實質上相異於所請求發明,因此,此組合僅能由後見之明所思及。

8、所舉出之先前技藝係組合不同的程序,此些程序發生於不同的文脈,使用不同的機制,處於不同的階段,及/或具有不同的效果。

9、所請求之元件其一的功能相異於所舉出之先前技藝。

10、於先前技藝具有無限的組合可能,且一種特殊的,先前未被知道的洞察結果,導出所請求的發明。

11、審查員並未提供理由或分析為何參考文獻會被組合。唉,這對審查員是一種愚弄,他會以捏造的理由反擊,而攻擊這不切實際的理由希望渺茫,不過,承受所有你能承受的打擊。

12、所組合的參考文獻未教示請求項所有的限制條件。

13、所提案之組合或修改,會破壞參考文獻的功能,或使其無法滿足它的使用目的(參考MPEP 2143.01)。

14、所請求之範圍的重要性;加上產生該效果的證據(參考MPEP 2144.05)。

15、二次考量,如商業的成功(祝好運)、滿足長期的需求、其他人的失敗、被其他人複製。

16、不將參考文獻加以組合係為常識,因此所請求之發明非顯而易知。換言之,將參考文獻加以組合為非常識。有一點像在反駁整體的置換可能性。

==========

From that flow possible arguments to counter obviousness. There are but a few primary thrusts, with variations that apply to different claimed subject matter.

1) The claims derive from unpredictable results. Best used when pointing out how the prior art approach failed to yield similar results.

2) The prior art use exhibited different properties than that achieved by the claimed invention; a variation of unpredictable results.

3) The cited prior art teaches away from the claimed invention. Best used when the prior art takes a vector that achieves different results, uses different means or different process.

4) The cited prior art combination yielded different results, so would not yield the claimed invention. 

5) The claimed invention is not a combination, as evidence by the cited combination prior art being different in some way from the claimed invention.

6) Hindsight bias was applied by the examiner because the problem solved by the claimed invention was viewed in a different context by the cited prior art; from that (prior art) context, the solution would thus not have been obvious. Alternately, in the framework of prior art application, the cited combination would not have been considered to have a reasonable expectation of success. This a more subtle variant when the teaching away argument cannot be substantiated.

7) The combination results from such disparate technology arts, where prior art application was substantially different than claimed, that the combination could only be conceived in hindsight.

8) The cited prior art combines different processes occurring in different contexts, using different mechanisms, at different stages, and/or with different results.

9) One of the claimed elements functions differently than in the cited prior art.

10) There were an infinite number of combinations possible in the prior art, and a particular previously unrealized insight led to the claimed invention.

11) The examiner did not provide a reason or analysis of why references would be combined. Alas, this is mostly a taunt for the examiner to come back with a cooked-up rationale. Attacking the rationale as unrealistic may be a long shot, but take all the shots you can get.

I've been trying to come up with a list of possible attacks on prima facie obviousness, since the KSR decision came down. Your list is helpful, but pitiful (unfortunately, this is what we're left with).

I would add the following:

1. Combined references fail to teach all claim limitations--we've still got this one, lest we forget.

MPEP 2143.01

2. The proposed combination or modification would destroy the functioning of the reference, or make it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.

MPEP 2144.05

3. Criticality of claimed ranges + evidence to that effect.

Secondary Factors

1. Commercial success (good luck)

2. Satisfaction of long felt need

3. Failure of others

4. Copying by others

IMO, KSR sort of revived the secondary considerations as a point of attack. By citing them favorably, I think the SCOTUS may force the PTO to pay more than lip service when denying patentability over these. However, obviously, more than argument will be necessary to establish their validity.

Hawk anb BierBelly,

Love your posts, here and otherwise.

If my memory serves, and it doesn't always anymore due to my advancing years, there was a Fed. Cir. decision, maybe a little after KSR, and non-precedential, in which the court found the invention non-obvious because it would have been common sense NOT to combine the references, or in other words, that it would have been uncommon sense to combine the references.

I think the case involved a situation where reference A had an element for performing a particular function and the court said there was nothing, including common sense, that would provide one of ordinary skill in the art with a reason to swap that element with another, different element from reference B for performing the same function. Kind of cutting against that whole "interchangeability" reasoning for combining.

I'll keep your lists in mind, but what I've found since KSR is that it's just easier to make a technical argument. Explain why the proposed modification or combination just wouldn't be done, wouldn't make sense, wouldn't be beneficial.

3/21/2008

進步性的答辯方向(一)

進步性的答辯方向(一)

連結為ksr判例後進步性判斷之教育訓練的講義,可以參考看看,內容提供了一些將來進行進步性答辯時,可以參考的答辯方向。

有利的答辯方向:
請求項仍可被准允專利,因為:
(一)存在不足夠的事實;或由申請人所提供之具說服力的說明,此說明係能夠否定所發現之事實的至少其一。
(二)存在二次考量,例如商業成功、長期的需求及不可預期的效果。
(三)所請的元件不能被已知的方法組合。
(四)所請的多數元件不單僅執行每一元件個別所執行的功能。


關於第一點,審查員考慮方向:
※請求項是否被給與了它們的最大合理解釋?[說明書中]是否存在有特定的定義?
※檢索是否值得信賴?你是否單僅為一個缺少的特點進行檢索?
※參考文獻是否已被適當地解釋及考慮,用以得到[此組合為]常識的結論,以及此些參考文獻教導了此行業者什麼知識?
心得:
1、向審查員解釋請求項用語的定義相異於參考文獻的用語。
2、檢查是否有一參考文獻僅揭示請求項中的一個元件,並進行[……我還沒想到的答辯方向……]。

關於第二點:
※於KSR中的基本理由係依賴可預期的結果及可預想的成功,二次考量可以用來討論此等。關於評估二次考量之說服性的提示,請參考MPEP 716至716.04,以及132宣誓書的部分)。

關於第三點:
※例如,由於技術上的困難。[應留意]這不同於因缺少動機而不會想到將所請元件加以組合。
※能夠適用關於“相反教示”及“破壞了教示”的論點,但應小心。請參照MPEP 2145 Section X. D. “References Teach Away from the Invention or Render Prior Art Unsatisfactory for Intended Purpose”;以及MPEP 2141.02 與2143.01。
※能夠適用關於“後見之明”的論點,但應小心。請參照MPEP 2145 Section X. A. “Impermissible Hindsight”。 後見之明的論點需克服所發現的事實及說明於基本理由的結論。
※能夠適用關於“可預期的成功”的論點,但應小心。請參照MPEP 2143.02 “Reasonable Expectation of Success is Required”。於電子案中可能性較稀少。


另外,於該講義中還說明了部分不太可能成功的答辯方向,答辯時可避免僅考慮該些答辯方式:
※申請人單僅陳述或爭論:智財局沒有確立進步性的初步表面證據;智財局所依賴的常識沒有文件證據的支持。單僅是此些陳述或爭論不被認為是實質且適足的反證理由;或不被認為是對於拒絕理由之有效的反駁(參考37 CFR 1.111(b))。

3/18/2008

【辭典】Subject matter 主題

【辭典】Subject matter 主題

Definition: Subject matter is what something is about.

In artwork, the subject matter would be what the artist has chosen to paint, draw or sculpt. In patent law, the subject matter would be the technical content of a patent or patent application found in the description, claims and drawings.

於美術品中,主題為藝術家所選擇並加以繪畫、描畫或雕刻。於專利法中,主題為一專利或專利申請案之於詳細說明、請求項或圖示中能被發現到的技術內容。

In other words, subject matter is what the inventor has choosen to invent, and in a patent application the inventor must reveal the subject matter (invention) in a way dictated by law.

Examples:

Example 1 : The specification must conclude with a claim particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention or discovery.

Example 2 : The distinction between patentable and unpatentable subject matter continues to be a topic of debate among software developers, academics, lawyers, and USPTO examiners.

Example 3 : The patented subject matter, and additional subject matter still pending in the US and foreign patent offices, includes claims to methods and devices for delivering medicinal substances to the interior of cells in various body tissues.

3/17/2008

秘密新仕樣

秘密新仕樣

資料來源
意匠が登録されると意匠公報に掲載されます。しかしながら、意匠は物品の美的外観に関する創作であるため公表されると容易に模倣・盗用され得ますので、販 売開始までは秘密にしておきたいというニーズがあります。したがって、意匠の登録日から3年以内の期間であれば公表せずに秘密にしておくことを認める秘密 意匠制度が設けられています。

新仕樣被登錄後就會被揭示於新仕樣的公報,然而,由於新仕樣是關係於物品之美的外觀的創作,一旦被公開後很容易被模仿及盜用,因而會有希望在直到開始販賣前將其保持秘密的需要。因此,設置了秘密新仕樣的制度,此制度承認於新仕樣的登錄日開始的3年內,不加以公開讓其處秘密狀態。


資料來源
ハ.秘密意匠制度
 秘密意匠制度は、出願時(登録納付時(2006年改正))の請求により、意匠権の設定登録後も3年以内の期間に限り、その意匠の秘密を認める制度です。
 例えば、実施準備に長期を要する物品の意匠や、流行を先取りした意匠などについては、登録後も模倣盗用を予防するために認められた制度であり、公益性が少ないために秘密による弊害も少ないからです。

資料來源
第十四条 秘密意匠
意匠登録出願人は、意匠権の設定の登録の日から三年以内の期間を指定して、その期間その意匠を秘密にすることを請求することができる。

-----------------------
日本法第十四條的規定了「秘密意匠制度」。

ことを認める 承認
對於這個日文單字,一開始覺得翻譯成承認怪怪的,查了字典的結果,對應的英文字為“acknowledge”,使用方法的例句有“acknowledge the right to petition”、“acknowledge a deed before a notary public”,因此最後決定依“承認”來翻譯。

3/09/2008

知識產權是一種手段,而不是一種道德

 

常常聽人提及要尊重知識產權,用一種道德的口氣來要求人尊守,也許在試著閱讀New York time 2002年出版一篇文章後,會另人有不相同的想法。

New Economy; The intellectual property debate takes a page from 19th-century America

By STEVE LOHR

Published: October 14, 2002

IN the 19th century, the United States was both a rapidly industrializing nation and -- as Charles Dickens, among others, knew all too well -- a bold pirate of intellectual property.

But these days, when it comes to dealing with developing nations around the world, the United States seems to be ignoring its own swashbuckling heritage. 

The global debate over intellectual property rights -- patents, copyrights and trademarks -- is focused mainly on forward-looking industries like computer software, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. But Americans can look back to this nation's 19th-century experience in book publishing, for example, to understand the developing world's viewpoint.

Back then, American law offered copyright protection -- but only to citizens and residents of the United States. The works of English authors were copied with abandon and sold cheap to an American public hungry for books. This so irritated Mr. Dickens -- whose ''Christmas Carol'' sold for 6 cents a copy in America, versus $2.50 in England -- that he toured the United States in 1842, urging the adoption of international copyright protection as being in the long-term interest of American authors and publishers.

美國也曾經是個明目張膽的知識產權海盜國家,於1842年小說家狄更斯的著作“小氣財神”,在美國的盜版書僅賣6美分,而在英國原版書卻要2.5美元。而現在卻以自己的國力要求世界各國制訂修改知識產權的相關法令。

Indeed, the economies that were shining success stories of development, from the United States in the 19th century to Japan and its East Asian neighbors like Taiwan and South Korea in the 20th, took off under systems of weak intellectual property protection. Technology transfer came easily and inexpensively until domestic skills and local industries were advanced enough that stronger intellectual property protections became a matter of self-interest.

【 2022/07/26 更新】

事實上,像十九世紀的美國到二十世紀的日本、及它的東亞鄰居臺灣及南韓,經濟能夠發展亮麗,是靠軟弱無力的知識產權保護所促成的。技術轉讓既容易又便宜,直到國內技能和當地產業足夠先進,以至於加強知識產權保護成為符合自身利益的問題時。



2/12/2008

靜態用語及動態用語

Patently-O

Claimed "Insert" Limitation Creates Product by Process

“insert(插入物)” 解釋成“用以插入的物”

On appeal, the CAFC agreed with Miken that the insert limitation required an element that was “put or fit into something else.” Consequently, Miken’s products cannot infringe because the accused structural members were never “inserted or intended for insertion.”

因此,不能解釋成“內部結構元件”“多牆結構”。

 

Miken Composites v. Wilson Sporting Goods (Fed. Cir. 2008)

To contend, however, as Wilson does, that it does not matter whether an insert is placed into a pre-existing frame or whether a frame is built around it ignores that ordinary and customary meaning, notwithstanding Wilson’s attempts to categorize the term “insert” as “purely structural.” The issue would have been different if the claims contained the language argued in Wilson’s briefs; to wit, “internal structural member,” Wilson Br. at 31, 38, or “multi-wall product,” Reply Br. at 3, but they do not. It is the language of the claims not the argument that governs.

心得:

標的為物之Claim中,所使用的語言,最好儘量使用靜態用語及結構性的用語,少使用具有動詞暗示性的用語。

使用動態用語或動詞暗示性的用語,很有可能會被解釋成Product by Process的claim,雖然判決中法官說不是Product by Process而是功能代表結構的用語,但我怎麼看怎麼讀都覺得是滿像Product by Process。

As for Wilson’s contention that the district court impermissibly imported a process limitation into a product claim, we disagree. As we have discussed, the district court merely adopted an ordinary meaning of the term “insert.” Summary Judgment Opinion at 11. That this ordinary meaning has functional attributes does not change the fact that the claim recites a structural component, albeit one possessed with certain understood characteristics.

2/04/2008

Doctrine of Full Scope Enablement 致能整個請求範圍

CAFC Continues to Expand Doctrine of Full Scope Enablement

When analyzing enablement, the court looks to ensure that the “full scope of the invention” is enabled — and thus looking beyond whether the particular accused design is enabled.

對致能要件進行分析時,法院在確認特定之被控侵權設計是否“被致能”前,應先確認整個發明的範圍是否被致能。

However, the “full scope” doctrine has serious deficiencies. The most notable are the potentially chaotic results from applying the doctrine to claims that include the comprising transition language.  The problem arises because the comprising transition allows a claim implicitly encompass a wide variety of add on limitations that might be found in an infringing device. See, for example Automotive Technologies Int’l v. BMW (Fed. Cir. 2007) (claim scope that implicitly covered both mechanical and electrical sensor was not enabled by description of mechanical sensor); Liebel-Flarsheim v. Medrad (Fed. Cir. 2007) (claim scope that implicitly covered both jacketed and jacket-free needle holders was not enabled by description of jacketed needle holders).

最值得注意的是,將此條原則(Doctrine of Full Scope Enablement)應用於包含開放式連接詞comprising的請求項時,會導致潛在的混亂。此問題的產生原因在於,開放式連接詞允許請求項暗示地包含各種多樣的附加限制條件,而能夠於侵權物中找到該些限制條件。

 

心得:

  • 在寫說明書時,應該小心使用comprising.
  • 專利權人在進行解譯申請專利範圍時,應該小心解譯後的“整個”權利範圍,是否能被說明書所支持。
  • 強化附屬項,即多寫幾個看似無用的附屬項。 例如,於Automotive Technologies Int’l v. BMW 一案中,獨立項寫sensor附屬項寫mechanical sensor。看到這種判例,才會覺得附屬項的重要性。

=========================

http://www.agc.co.jp/news/2002/0401.html

"Look Beyond"には、グループのスローガンとして、「将来を見据え」「自らの領域を超えた視点を持ち」「現状に満足せず飽くなき革新を追求する」などの意味が込められています。

http://eow.alc.co.jp/look%20beyond/UTF-8/

look beyond
~の先を思い描く(在想…之前,先……。)
・Try to look beyond the 21st century. : 21世紀より先を思い描いてごらん。

is enabled 被致能

這個詞真的很難翻譯,翻長一點會比較通順一點,即「說明書的揭露是否能夠使此行業者能夠具以實施」,此行業者是學習日文的「当業者」更正確的用語為「於此領域具有通常知識者」。

專利這行業要求用語使用正確又精簡,難!