【判例】於審查專利過程中申請專利範圍應做最廣解譯

若一前案揭露了“back-end systems”，而後案揭露了“user computers”，那麼後案的“user computers”有沒有包含“back-end systems”呢？可參見：IN RE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE TECH CENTER

During examination, “claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” . . . . . . The “broadest reasonable construction” rule applies to reexaminations as well as initial examinations. . . . . . . Giving claims their broadest reasonable construction “serves the public interest by reducing the possibility that claims, finally allowed, will be given broader scope than is justified.” . . . . . . . An essential purpose of patent examination is to fashion claims that are precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous. Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” . . . . . . . Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant (or, in this case, the patentee), because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. . . . . . . .In the district court litigation, the court construed “user computer” to refer to a computer that serves one user at a time. However, the Board is required to use a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts. We have held that it is error for the Board to “appl[y] the mode of claim interpretation that is used by courts in litigation, when interpreting the claims of issued patents in connection with determinations of infringement and validity.”

CFCA認為：審查專利過程中申請專利範圍應給予合理的最廣解譯，不管是初審時或是再審時（美國的再審）都應如此，這樣才可以避免申請專利範圍在訴訟中被擴大解譯，最主要的目的是審理後的申請專利範圍才會precise, clear, correct, and unambiguous，才可刪去不確定的申請專利範圍。雖然專利權人提出地方法院和Board解譯申請專利範圍的方法不相同，但本應如此，地方法院解譯申請專利範圍，是在對已受予專利進行侵權和有效性的決定，若Board和以與地方法院相同的方式解譯申請專利範圍才是錯誤的。雖然兩者矛盾，但這不會對專利權人不公平，因為專利權人係有機會修正申請專利範圍，使它包含更精確的範圍。

註：最後Board 將user computer 解譯成包含任何能讓使用者跑應用程式的電腦，所以也就預見了back-end systems，故判定後案不具可專利性。原文如下：the Board adopted a broader construction of the claim term “user computer” that encompassed any computer “capable of running application programs for a user.” That construction reached the back-end systems of the prior art.。
註：還可參見日本河野事務所的美國CAFC判例介紹。