可參見美國判例：JOHNSON & JOHNSTON v. R.E. Service ，說明書有揭露的部分，以後不得適用均等論。其原因如下摘錄：
……, citing YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Maxwell avoided examination of the unclaimed alternative, which was distinct from the claimed alternative. In view of the distinctness of the two embodiments, both of which were fully described in the specification, the Federal Circuit denied Maxwell the opportunity to enforce the unclaimed embodiment as an equivalent of the one that was claimed. …… Thus, this court must decide whether a patentee can apply the doctrine of equivalents to cover unclaimed subject matter disclosed in the specification. …… Consistent with its scope definition and notice functions, the claim requirement presupposes that a patent applicant defines his invention in the claims, not in the specification. After all, the claims, not the specification, provide the measure of the patentee’s right to exclude. …… McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424 (1891) (“The claim is the measure of his right to relief, and while the specification may be referred to to limit the claim, it can never be made available to expand it.”); SRI Int’l, 775 F.2d at 1121, n.14 (“Specifications teach. Claims claim.”). …… Moreover, a patentee cannot narrowly claim an invention to avoid prosecution scrutiny by the PTO, and then, after patent issuance, use the doctrine of equivalents to establish infringement because the specification discloses equivalents. “Such a result would merely encourage a patent applicant to present a broad disclosure in the specification of the application and file narrow claims, avoiding examination of broader claims that the applicant could have filed consistent with the specification.” Maxwell, 86 F.3d at 1107 (citing Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1564, 31 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). …… A patentee who inadvertently fails to claim disclosed subject matter, however, is not left without remedy. Within two years from the grant of the original patent, a patentee may file a reissue application and attempt to enlarge the scope of the original claims to include the disclosed but previously unclaimed subject matter. 35 U.S.C. § 251 (2000). In addition, a patentee can file a separate application claiming the disclosed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 120 (2000) (allowing filing as a continuation application if filed before all applications in the chain issue).
……，引用YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998)。……。Maxwell避免了未主張權利之實施例選項的審查，而這個實施例選項卻又與主張權利之實施例選項有所區別。以該等兩實施例之區別來觀看，兩者皆完全揭露於說明書中，Federal Circuit否定了Maxwell將未主張權利之實施例視為有主張權利之實施例的均等物。……。因此，本法庭必須決定專利權人是否可以適用均等論，覆蓋揭露於說明書中卻沒有主張權利的部分。……。在它定義的範圍與它告知功能一致下，申請專利範圍的要件是預先假定專利申請人將他的發明定義在申請專利範圍中，而不是說明書內。必竟是以申請專利範圍，去計量專利權人排除他人的權利，而不是說明書。……。McClain v. Ortmayer, 141 U.S. 419, 424 (1891)（“是以申請專利範圍計量他所釋放權利，同時可能會說明書來限制申請專利範圍，說明書不能被利用來擴大申請專利範圍。”）……。尤其是，專利權人不能狹窄地主張發明的權利範圍，以避免PTO的審查程序的檢查，然後於專利公告發證後，卻因說明書揭露了均等物就使用均等論建立侵權。“這樣的結果僅僅是鼓勵專利申請人於申請案的說明書中描述較廣的揭露，卻提出較窄的申請專利範圍，避免審查較廣的申請專利範圍，而這欲又是申請人所可以提出的與說明書一致的申請專利範圍。” Maxwell, 86 F.3d at 1107 (citing Genentech, Inc. v. Wellcome Found. Ltd., 29 F.3d 1555, 1564, 31 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).。……。不過，雖然專利權人會因不慎而未對已揭露的發明內容主張權利，但並非沒有補救辦法。在原始的專利被授予時的兩年內，專利權人可以提出再發證申請案，試圖擴大原始申請專利範圍的範圍，以包含有揭露先前卻沒有主張權利的發明內容。35 U.S.C. § 251 (2000)（若在所有的申請案公告發證前提出，係允許提出一個延續案）.。另外，依據35 U.S.C. § 120 (2000)，專利權人還可以提出個別的申請案，來主張已揭露之發明內容的權利範圍。
另外，更早前還有一個案例，YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998)，判決結果卻不相同，它所持的理由是，說明書有提及的內容，是可以教示或公知公眾，其發明內容的均等物是什麼？只是最新的判例PSC COMPUTER PRODUCTS, INC.,vs.
FOXCONN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and HON HAI PRECISION INDUSTRY CO., LTD.,也是捨棄這樣的觀點了。
沒有留言:
張貼留言