【判例】"step for" 美國專利法112條第6段

使用"step for"的方法的申請專利範圍，會自動推定為適用美國專利法112條第6段嗎？可參見：
Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc., et al. v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al.: "

We conclude that the district court erred in applying �112 �6. Method claims necessarily recite the steps of the method, and the preamble words that 'the method comprises the steps of' do not automatically convert each ensuing step into the form of �112 �6.
方法請求項必定會提及“step of method”，所以前言部的用語，即方法包含“step of”，不會自動推定之後的step為適用第112條第6段。

Nor does the preamble usage 'steps of' create a presumption that each ensuing step is in step-plus-function form; to the contrary, the absence of the signal 'step for' creates the contrary presumption.
前言部使用“step of”也不會推定之後的每個step為“step-plus-function”的形式。

The district court's claim construction is modified accordingly; the 'determining' step must be construed, as for all claim steps, in light of the specification and the prosecution history.
決定性的step，全部的step亦然，必須依據說明書及申請過程歷史來解譯。

We remand to the district court for that purpose."

註：CAFC的判決是申請專利範圍是否適用美國專利法112條第6段的推定，應依據說明書及申請過程歷史來判斷。
註：還可參見日本河野事務所的美國CAFC判例介紹。