申請專利範圍的解釋

【請求項】申請專利範圍的解釋

Johnson Worldwide v. Zebco175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999)Before MAYER, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

We begin, as with all claim interpretation analyses, with the language of the claims. . . . The general rule is, of course, that terms in the claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning. . . . General descriptive terms will ordinarily be given their full meaning; modifiers will not be added to broad terms standing alone. See, e.g., Virginia Panel Corp. v. MAC Panel Co., 133 F.3d 860, 865-66, 45 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (unmodified term "reciprocating" not limited to linear reciprocation); Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 621-22, 34 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) at 1821 (unmodified term "associating" not limited to explicit association); Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 987, 6 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (unmodified term "plasticizer" given full range of ordinary and accustomed meaning). In short, a court must presume that the terms in the claim mean what they say, and, unless otherwise compelled, give full effect to the ordinary and accustomed meaning of claim terms. . . .

解釋申請專利範圍的通用規則是：請求項中的用語必須是一般及慣常的意思。但是在下列兩種情況下，必須將它解釋成其他意思。

Our case law demonstrates two situations where a sufficient reason exists to require the entry of a definition of a claim term other than its ordinary and accustomed meaning. The first arises if the patentee has chosen to be his or her own lexicographer by clearly setting forth an explicit definition for a claim term. . . . . The second is where the term or terms chosen by the patentee so deprive the claim of clarity that there is no means by which the scope of the claim may be ascertained from the language used. . . . . In these two circumstances, a term or terms used in the claim invites--or indeed, requires-- reference to intrinsic, or in some cases, extrinsic, evidence, see Vitronics (reference to extrinsic evidence is proper when intrinsic evidence cannot resolve ambiguity in claim language), to determine the scope of the claim language.

【請求項】申請專利範圍的解釋

【請求項】申請專利範圍的解釋

Vitronics v. Conceptronics90 F.3d 1576, 39 USPQ2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Indeed, if "solder reflow temperature" were defined to mean liquidus temperature, a preferred (and indeed only) embodiment in the specification would not fall within the scope of the patent claim. Such an interpretation is rarely, if ever, correct and would require highly persuasive evidentiary support, which is wholly absent in this case.

解釋後的申請專利範圍，應該包含說明書的較佳實施例，如果不包含也應該要有具說服力的證據支持。

【請求項】多項制

【請求項】多項制

附屬項的範圍通常都被獨立項的範圍所包含，因此，專利說明書的請求項為何採用多項制？雖然採用“多項制”在目前的眼光下，幾乎是理所當然的，至於為什麼，這個問題小弟也幾乎懶得去想了。也對！因為想了理由又如何？不論有沒有答案，大家的作法都是一樣的，不過，今天看到一篇文章（事實上它是一本免費的電子書），覺得也許可以試著聽聽法官們怎麼解譯（他是一個“當時還是地方法官的“法官的opinion），順便整理一下我覺得有趣的幾段文字。
專利說明書內包含技術和法律兩個層面，所以要撰寫專利說明書是很困難的，而這種難處早在1892年就被最高法院的法官所承認的：
This land is even more fantastical when populated with patents, for a patent attempts to combine the particular challenges of a specialized field of technology with the separate challenges of a particularized field of law.
The Supreme Court recognized the difficulty of patent drafting over a century ago when it observed: The specification and claims of a patent, particularly if the invention be at all complicated, constitute one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy. . . .
Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 171 (1892).
另外，撰寫專利說明書內的“權利範圍”，它的難處可分成兩面來看：
However, claim breadth cuts both ways: a patent applicant must keep its claims sufficiently narrow to avoid sweeping in the prior art, but sufficiently broad to encompass the accused devices or processes. Often, the applicant must do this before it is aware of all the relevant prior art and before the accused device even exists.
就是因為這個原因，專利的權利範圍，適合採用“多項制”。
In his usual style, then-District Judge Hand discussed the practice of differentiating an invention from the prior artby drafting claims of varying breadth:
There is nothing improper, so far as I can see, in first putting your claims as broadly as in good faith you can, and then, ex abundanti cautela, following them successively with narrower claims designed to protect you against possible anticipations of which you are not yet aware. Indeed, the very case upon which the defendant relies (Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 917, 24 C.C.A. 384) shows the necessity of claims as broad as one can honestly support.

說明書

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
03-1528

Bilstad v. Wakalopulos


This court then distinguished In re Smythe by explaining that the Board properly found that this particular field was unpredictable. "Unlike the circumstances In re Smythe presented, the instant facts present a case in which there is 'unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated’’.

Thus, unpredictability in the particular field may warrant closer scrutiny of whether disclosure of a species is sufficient to describe a genus.
The distinction in these cases is based upon what would be reasonably conveyed to a person skilled in the art at the time of the original disclosure. If the difference between members of the group is such that the person skilled in the art would not readily discern that other members of the genus would perform similarly to the disclosed members, i.e., if the art is unpredictable, then disclosure of more species is necessary to adequately show possession of the entire genus.

如果說明書僅是揭示幾個下位概念的實施例，能不能請求上位概念的範圍，關鍵在於此領域是否屬於“可預期的”，而能不能預期的舉証責任，通常在於申請人。

【說明書】enablement requirement

05-1062

LIZARDTECH, INC., v. Earth Resource Mapping Ltd.

Although the specification would meet the requirements of section 112 with respect to a claim directed to that particular engine, it would not necessarily support a broad claim to every possible type of fuel-efficient engine, no matter how different in structure or operation from the inventor’s engine. The single embodiment would support such a generic claim only if the specification would “reasonably convey to a person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.

Thus, a patentee cannot always satisfy the requirements of section 112, in supporting expansive claim language, merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.

While it is true that an originally filed claim can provide the requisite written description to satisfy section 112

一個“enablement requirement”的判決

如果一份說明書僅揭示一種實施例，若要請求較廣的範圍時，必需是「the specification would “reasonably convey to a person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.」

原本的請求項文字說明，是可以用來當作“written description”來滿足112條的“enablement requirement”。但本案的請求項21的文字說明並無法令該行業者了解“the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.”。

自己的想法：
為取得較大的權利範圍，請求項的文字通常較“廣泛”，因此要滿足該行業者了解“the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.”會比較小，我覺得。所以，最好於說明書中提供較多的實施例，較能確保對發明的保護。

【請求項】數值限定發明

【請求項】數值限定發明

這是一個數值限定發明的判例，讀它只是因為想了解怎麼“思考”數值限定發明。

判例
IN RE LANCE G. PETERSON and IOANNIS VASATIS

第一步考慮“A. The Prima Facie Case of Obviousness ”

A prima facie case of obviousness typically exists when the ranges of a claimed composition overlap the ranges disclosed in the prior art.

下列雖然是判例中的文字，但它大部份的內容都可以在MPEP 2144.05找得到。

In cases involving overlapping ranges, we and our predecessor court have consistently held that even a slight overlap in range establishes a prima facie case of obviousness. E.g., In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1578, 16 USPQ2d at 1936-37 (concluding that a claimed invention was rendered obvious by a prior art reference whose disclosed range (“about 1-5%” carbon monoxide) abutted the claimed range (“more than 5% to about 25%” carbon monoxide)); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d at 1303, 182 USPQ at 553 (concluding that a claimed invention was rendered prima facie obvious by a prior art reference whose disclosed range (0.020-0.035% carbon) overlapped the claimed range (0.030-0.070% carbon)); see also In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1469, 43 USPQ2d at 1365 (acknowledging that a claimed invention was rendered prima facie obvious by a prior art reference whose disclosed range (50-100 Angstroms) overlapped the claimed range (100-600 Angstroms)). We have also held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists when the claimed range and the prior art range do not overlap but are close enough such that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (concluding that a claim directed to an alloy containing “0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% maximum iron, balance titanium” would have been prima facie obvious in view of a reference disclosing alloys containing 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium).

第二步考慮“B. Rebuttal of the Prima Facie Case”

要反駁Prima Facie Case，僅是單單一個下位概念的範圍具有不可預期的效果是不夠的，必須是相對於整個“要申請專利之範圍”的範圍，具有不可預期的效果才可。

We turn next to Peterson’s attempt to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness. In general, an applicant may overcome a prima facie case of obviousness by establishing “that the [claimed] range is critical, generally by showing that the claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior art range.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1469-70, 43 USPQ2d at 1365 (alteration in original) (quoting In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d at 1578, 16 USPQ2d at 1936). That same standard applies when, as here, the applicant seeks to optimize certain variables by selecting narrow ranges from broader ranges disclosed in the prior art. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d at 1470, 43 USPQ2d at 1365 (“Only if the ‘results of optimizing a variable’ are ‘unexpectedly good’ can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range.” (quoting In re Antoine, 559 F.2d 618, 620, 195 USPQ 6, 8 (CCPA 1977))); In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 267, 191 USPQ 90, 100 (CCPA 1976) (recognizing that “ranges which overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art may be patentable if the applicant can show criticality in the claimed range by evidence of unexpected results”). Moreover, the applicant’s showing of unexpected results must be commensurate in scope with the claimed range. See In re Greenfield, 571 F.2d 1185, 1189, 197 USPQ 227, 230 (CCPA 1978) (“Establishing that one (or a small number of) species gives unexpected results is inadequate proof, for ‘it is the view of this court that objective evidence of non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claims which the evidence is offered to support.’” (quoting In re Tiffin, 448 F.2d 791, 792, 171 USPQ 294, 294 (CCPA 1971))).

【請求項】數值限定及均等論

【20061103】更新
【請求項】數值限定及均等論

先前曾寫過一篇blog，內容提及日本法院拒絕數值限定發明適用均等論，因為數值限定發明的本質部分在於數值本身. 當然如果用數值來限定的發明，亦即其本身已具有新穎性，數值限定並非其本質部分，那麼這種用數值來做限定的發明則可適用均等論.

這介紹一個美專判決，摘錄：

「We therefore do not find a basis for precluding Abbott from relying on the doctrine of equivalents simply because the claim recites numeric ranges for the components of the claimed surfactant.」

不僅因“用數值來限定發明”，即判定不得適用均等論. 數值限定發明能不能適用均等論要依個案為主。

【20061103】更新
美國判斷能不能適用均等論的方式是先判斷適不適用禁反言、及先前技術阻卻；這不同於日本的五個要件（其中之一就是本質要件，即發明的本質部分不得適用均等論）。不過，詳細看看還是可以找到一些小小相同的地方，即

On the contrary, the addition of free fatty acids distinguished the surfactant claimed by the ’839 patent from the surfactant described by the ’301 patent. The addition of free fatty acids is no less significant with respect to the hypothetical claim and, on this basis, an examiner could have determined that the hypothetical claim was nonobvious.

加入一個元件，即可與舊技術做區別，所以free fatty acids 才是本質的部分，因此此案可以不適用本質要件。


判決 01-1374
ABBOTT LABORATORIES and
MITSUBISHI-TOKYO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(formerly known as Tokyo Tanabe Co., Ltd.),
v.
DEY, L.P. and DEY, INC.,

The fact that a claim recites numeric ranges does not, by itself, preclude Abbott from relying on the doctrine of equivalents. For example, in Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Co., 205 F.3d 1377, 54 USPQ2d 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the claim at issue was for a porcelain composition that recited numeric percentage ranges for each component of the composition. While this court agreed with the Jeneric/Pentron district court’s claim construction that the claim language “indicates that the invention’s chemical components should be limited to the precise ranges set forth therein,” we also stated that “the district court will have the opportunity to adjudicate fully the merits of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. at 1381, 1384, 54 USPQ2d at 1089, 1091. Thus, while the numeric ranges limited the literal scope of the claims, we did not preclude Jeneric/Pentron from applying the doctrine of equivalents simply because the claim recited numeric ranges for the components of the claimed composition. Likewise, in Forest Laboratories, we applied the doctrine of equivalents to the water element of claim 1 of the ’839 patent, which requires 2.1%-5.2% water. See Forest Labs., 239 F.3d at 1313, 57 USPQ2d at 1800. We therefore do not find a basis for precluding Abbott from relying on the doctrine of equivalents simply because the claim recites numeric ranges for the components of the claimed surfactant.

禁反言
The first step in a prosecution history estoppel analysis is to determine which claim limitations are alleged to be met by equivalents. Then, the court must determine whether the limitations at issue were amended during prosecution of the patent. If they were not, amendment-based estoppel will not bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents. However, even if the claim limitation has not been amended, an argument-based estoppel may nevertheless arise based on statements made by the applicant during prosecution.

申請過程禁反言分成兩種： amendment-based estoppel 及argument-based estoppel 。

先前技術
A pioneer patent by definition will have little applicable prior art to limit it, whereas an improvement patent’s scope is confined by the existing knowledge on which the improvement is based. See, e.g., Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc., 181 F.3d 1291, 1301, 50 USPQ2d 1900, 1907 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Without extensive prior art to confine and cabin their claims, pioneers acquire broader claims than non-pioneers who must craft narrow claims to evade the strictures of a crowded art field.”). However, the fact that a patent is an improvement patent does not automatically preclude application of the doctrine of equivalents. “That a claim describing a limited improvement in a crowded field will have a limited range of permissible equivalents does not negate the availability of the doctrine [of equivalents] vel non.” Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 27 n.4.

先驅專利可以具有較大的均等範圍，而僅是改良的部分具有較小的改良空間。

PS：對於禁反言的適用及先前技術阻卻的適用方式，不太清楚的我，這一篇給了我很多的教導，我覺得很值得推薦給對這兩個適用方式不清楚的人看。

【程序】restriction requirement限制要求

【程序】restriction requirement限制要求

在審查員提出restriction requirement而分割成二個以上的專利案時，於之後所加入或修改的claim尚必需符合consonance requirement，才可避免the charge of double patenting。至於什麼是“consonance requirement” 請參照如下黑體字。

The claims of the different applications or patents are not consonant with the restriction requirement made by the examiner, since the claims have been changed in material respects from the claims at the time the requirement was made. For example, the divisional application filed includes additional claims not consonant in scope to the original claims subject to restriction in the parent. Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Opticon, Inc., 935 F.2d 1569, 19 USPQ2d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and Gerber Garment Technology, Inc. v. Lectra Systems, Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 16 USPQ2d 1436 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In order for consonance to exist, the line of demarcation between the independent and distinct inventions identified by the examiner in the requirement for restriction must be maintained. 916 F.2d at 688, 16 USPQ2d at 1440.

資料來源：MPEP 804.01
其他有關restriction requirement的判例，可用google搜尋。

【程序】reissue 再發行

更新2006.11.01

【程序】reissue 再發行

判例

GUIDANT CORPORATION, GUIDANT SALES CORPORATION
and ELI LILLY & COMPANY, V. MIROWSKI FAMILY VENTURES L.L.C.

依據35 U.S.C. § 251，在符合‘error’ requirement的情況下，發明人可以利用再發行來擴大請求項，專利代理人的錯誤被認為是常見的錯誤，但“recapture” 原申請案所曾放棄的範圍不被認為是錯誤，不符合錯誤要件。

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 251, a patentee may obtain reissue of a patent if the patent is, through error “without any deceptive intention, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, . . . by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent . . . .” 35 U.S.C. § 251; see also 37 C.F.R. § 1.175.

“In considering the ‘error’ requirement, we keep in mind that the reissue statute is ‘based on fundamental principles of equity and fairness, and should be construed liberally.’” Hester Indus., Inc. v. Stein, Inc., 142 F.3d 1472, 1479 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (citation omitted). We have stated that “[a]n attorney’s failure to appreciate the full scope of the invention is one of the most common sources of defects in patents,” and is generally sufficient to justify reissuing a patent. In re Wilder, 736 F.2d 1516, 1519 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also Hester, 142 F.3d at 1479-80; In re Clement, 131 F.3d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1997); Mentor Corp. v. Coloplast, Inc., 998 F.2d 992, 995 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Scripps Clinic & Res. Found. v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the error be unavoidable or that the error could not have been discovered by the patentee through proper communication with the prosecuting attorney. Wilder, 736 F.2d at 1519.

Reissue proceedings, however, cannot be used to obtain subject matter that could not have been included in the original patent. Under the “recapture” rule, the deliberate surrender of a claim to certain subject matter during the original prosecution of the application for a patent “made in an effort to overcome a prior art rejection” is not such “error” as will allow the patentee to recapture that subject matter in a reissue. Clement, 131 F.3d at 1468-69. Thus, the recapture rule prevents a patentee from regaining, through reissue, subject matter that was surrendered during prosecution of the original patent in an effort to obtain allowance of the original claims. Pannu v. Storz Inst., Inc., 258 F.3d 1366, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also Hester, 142 F.3d at 1479-80 (“[A] surrender is not the type of correctable ‘error’ contemplated by the reissue statute.”).

recapture rule的三個判斷步驟
“We apply the recapture rule as a three-step process: (1) first, we determine whether, and in what respect, the reissue claims are broader in scope than the original patent claims; (2) next, we determine whether the broader aspects of the reissue claims relate to subject matter surrendered in the original prosecution; and (3) finally, we determine whether the reissue claims were materially narrowed in other respects, so that the claims may not have been enlarged, and hence avoid the recapture rule.” N. Am. Container, Inc. v. Plastipak Packaging, Inc., 415 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Clement, 131 F.3d at 1471); see also Pannu, 258 F.3d at 1371 (citing Hester, 142 F.3d at 1482-83; Clement, 131 F.3d at 1470).

所以，判斷有無surrender，是能不能夠透過ressure來recapture原本之專利範圍的要件之一。於此案例中：

It is clear from the prosecution history that neither the examiner nor the prosecuting attorney, Mr. Nikolai, considered the unconditional embodiment a part of the invention. The fact that Mr. Nikolai thought the claims were directed to the conditional embodiment alone is demonstrated by his correspondence with the inventor and with the examiner. The fact that the examiner thought that the claim was to the conditional embodiment alone is demonstrated by the examiner’s amendment he made to add “minor wording changes.” This is the kind of inadvertence or mistake that the reissue doctrine was meant to remedy.

因為審查員及專利代理人都沒有考慮到nonconditional embodiment，所以雖然不符合surrender要件，因此可以讓專利權人recapture原本之專利範圍nonconditional embodiment的部分。


不知在臺灣因專利代理人的錯誤，是不是有什麼方法擴大專利範圍？

資料來源：一：Patent Prospector

【申請】Reduction to Practice 具體化

【申請】Reduction to Practice  具體化

僅是有個idea尚未做實驗是否能夠申請專利？

要申請專利必需是完成conception及reduction to practice，但是所謂的reduction to practice不一定要真正完成實驗或做出成品，只要是提出申請案即可完成“推定具體化”。但應注意的是，推定的具體化尚需符合第112條第1段落。

2138.05 MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE

Reduction to practice may be an actual reduction or a constructive reduction to practice which occurs when a patent application on the claimed invention is filed. The filing of a patent application serves as conception and constructive reduction to practice of the subject matter described in the application. Thus the inventor need not provide evidence of either conception or actual reduction to practice when relying on the content of the patent application. Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1352, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1130 (Fed.Cir. 1998).

Reduction to Practice分成“實際的具體化”及“推定的具體化”。

The earlier application must meet the enablement requirement and must contain a written description of the subject matter of the interference count. Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348, 1352, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Proof of a constructive reduction to practice requires sufficient disclosure under the “how to use” and “how to make” requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. Kawaiv. Metlesics, 480 F.2d 880, 886, 178 USPQ 158, 163 (CCPA 1973) (A constructive reduction to practice is not proven unless the specification discloses a practical utility where one would not be obvious. )

【實施】不公正行為

【實施】不公正行為

只要是不公正行為，則整份專利中的所有請求項不能執行，不論是否僅有單一請求項符合不公正行為。不公正行為，在審查期間若事後提出正確的數據資料是可以被治癒的，但是Reissue時就不能被治癒。

See：Hewlet-Packard Co. v. Crystal Chem Co.、In re Clark CCPA 1975

Inequitable conduct的兩個重要元素：materiality and intent

“Inequitable conduct includes affirmative misrepresentation of a material fact, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material information, coupled with an intent to deceive.” Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

The district court correctly concluded that the terminal disclaimer alone did not bind the ’368 patent and the ’504 patent together for purposes of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. Because the record shows no inequitable conduct during prosecution of the ’504 patent itself, the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the ’504 patent to be valid and enforceable. In fact, the ’504 patent had already issued before the inequitable conduct occurred. The ’504 patent issued on March 22, 1994; Stjernschantz executed his declaration on April 20, 1994.

後案且提出Terminal Disclaimer的專利案涉及不公正行為時，前案不會被判決不能執行。

【申請】揭示責任

【申請】揭示責任
揭示責任（Duty to disclose information material to patentability）

要判斷參考文獻是否必須提交給審查委員，其標準在於「material to patentability」，而“material”的標準於1992年以前為“Reasonable Examiner Standard”；因被批評不明確且和專利法其他領域所使用的概念沒有任何關係，所以USPTO於1992年將其改成“prima facie case of unpatentability”，只是這種標準是否會被法院採用尚不確定。

==
資料來源

The Federal Circuit stated that “inequitable conduct includes affirmative misrepresentation of a material fact, failure to disclose material information, or submission of false material information, coupled with an intent to deceive.” The withholding of information must meet thresholds of both materiality and intent. The standard a court should apply in determining whether a reference is “material” is not whether the particular examiner of the application at issue considered the reference to be important, rather, it is that of a “reasonable examiner.” Nor is a reference immaterial simply because the claims are eventually deemed by an examiner to be patentable thereover.

==

37 CFR 1.56
Duty to disclose information material to patentability.

(b)
Under this section, information is material to patentability when it is not cumulative to information already of record or being made of record in the application, and
(1)
It establishes, by itself or in combination with other information, a prima facie case of unpatentability of a claim; or
(2)
It refutes, or is inconsistent with, a position the applicant takes in:
(i) Opposing an argument of unpatentability relied on by the Office, or
(ii) Asserting an argument of patentability.

A prima facie case of unpatentability is established when the information compels a conclusion that a claim is unpatentable under the preponderance of evidence, burden-of-proof standard, giving each term in the claim its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification, and before any consideration is given to evidence which may be submitted in an attempt to establish a contrary conclusion of patentability.

其他文章：（Lessons From Recent Findings of Inequitable Conduct）

【美專】申請專利文件

【美專】申請專利文件

依據35 U.S.C. 111 Application.

申請美國專利需要：說明書、圖式、宣誓書、申請規費。其中，為提早取得申請日，宣誓書、申請規費可以於提交說明書及圖式後的一段期間內提交。

於1994年以後，新增provisional申請案，其不需繳交宣誓書；於1997年以後，僅需繳交說明書、圖式，即可取得申請日。

===
35 U.S.C. 111 Application
(a) IN GENERAL.-
(1) WRITTEN APPLICATION.-An application for patent shall be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title, in writing to the Director.
(2) CONTENTS.-Such application shall include-
(A) a specification as prescribed by section 112 of this title;
(B) a drawing as prescribed by section 113 of this title; and
(C) an oath by the applicant as prescribed by section 115 of this title.
(3) FEE AND OATH.-The application must be accompanied by the fee required by law. The fee and oath may be submitted after the specification and any required drawing are submitted, within such period and under such conditions, including the payment of a surcharge, as may be prescribed by the Director.
(4) FAILURE TO SUBMIT.-Upon failure to submit the fee and oath within such prescribed period, the application shall be regarded as abandoned, unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Director that the delay in submitting the fee and oath was unavoidable or unintentional. The filing date of an application shall be the date on which the specification and any required drawing are received in the Patent and Trademark Office.

==

§ 1.53 Application number, filing date, and completion of application.
(b) Application filing requirements - Nonprovisional application. The filing date of an application for patent filed under this section, except for a provisional application under paragraph (c) of this section or a continued prosecution application under paragraph (d) of this section, is the date on which a specification as prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112 containing a description pursuant to § 1.71 and at least one claim pursuant to § 1.75, and any drawing required by § 1.81(a) are filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. No new matter may be introduced into an application after its filing date. A continuing application, which may be a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part application, may be filed under the conditions specified in 35 U.S.C. 120, 121 or 365(c) and § 1.78(a).

(c) Application filing requirements - Provisional application. The filing date of a provisional application is the date on which a specification as prescribed by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112, and any drawing required by § 1.81(a) are filed in the Patent and Trademark Office. No amendment, other than to make the provisional application comply with the patent statute and all applicable regulations, may be made to the provisional application after the filing date of the provisional application.

專利權的共同所有於台美間的差異

台美專利權的共同所有的差異

臺灣專利法與美國專利法的不同，臺灣專利法規定「非得共有人全體之同意，不得讓與或授權他人實施」，但美國判例則判決（沒找到法條但找到判例）「可以將其權利轉換給他人」。

兩者各自立法想保護的對象重點不同，這樣的差異可以依契約來規定來解決各立法的缺點，在臺灣專利法下可以於契約中規定“不實施補償”來保護“弱勢的發明人”。

===

臺灣專利法
○第 61 條 發明專利權為共有時，除共有人自己實施外，非得共有人全體之同意，不得讓與或授權他人實施。但契約另有約定者，從其約定。
○第 62 條 發明專利權共有人未得共有人全體同意，不得以其應有部分讓與、信託他人或設定質權。

美國專利法
35 U.S.C. 262 Joint owners.
In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners.

To determine ownership of the ‘446, ‘438, and ‘114 Patents, the Court first must determine the inventorship of the inventions in the patents. Beech Aircraft Corp. v. EDO Corp., 990 F.2d 1237, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Normally, ownership of the patents will be determined by the identity of the inventors. Id. (“At the heart of any ownership analysis lies the question of who first invented the subject matter at issue, because the patent right initially vests in the inventor who may then, barring any restrictions to the contrary, transfer that right to another, and so forth.”); Teets v. Chromalloy Gas Turbine Corp., 83 F.3d 403, 407 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“Ownership springs from invention.”)（資料來源）

參考資料：（一）不實施補償

【發明人】申請人及發明人主體（二）

申請人及發明人主體（二）

Because "[c]onception is the touchstone of inventorship," each joint inventor must generally contribute to the conception of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Additionally, courts require corroborating evidence of conception. Id. at 1228. However, contribution to one claim is sufficient to be a co-inventor. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Conception is defined as "the `formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.'" Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Conception is complete when "the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor's mind that only ordinary kill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation." Burroughs Wellcome, 40 F.3d at 1228.（資料來源）

可參照此篇（或備份）文章，更清楚了解誰才是發明人。

能夠提供Conception的人才是發明人，所以僅是（1）提出應被解決的問題、希望得到的結果、籠統的解決方法；或（2）將發明具體化（具以實施（reduction to practice））的皆非發明人。

關於共同發明人

A joint invention is the product of collaboration of the inventive endeavors of two or more persons working toward the same end and producing an invention by their aggregate efforts. To constitute a joint invention, it is necessary that each of the inventors work on the same subject matter and make some contribution to the inventive thought and to the final result. Each needs to perform but a part of the task if an invention emerges from all of the steps taken together. It is not necessary that the entire inventive concept should occur to each of the joint inventors, or that the two should physically work on the project together. One may take a step at one time, the other an approach at different times. One may do more of the experimental work while the other makes suggestions from time to time. The fact that each of the inventors plays a different role and that the contribution of one may not be as great as that of another, does not detract from the fact that the invention is joint, if each makes some original contribution, though partial, to the final solution of the problem.

因此有collaboration才算是共同發明人，各自努力而達到相同的結果，不能稱為共同發明人，所謂的collaboration不必然是發生在相同的時間，且其可能情況如：「seeing a relevant report and building upon it」或「hearing another's suggestion at a meeting」。

MPEP（2137.01 Inventorship [R-3] - 2100 Patentability）中提供更多的解譯：
The inventive entity for a particular application is based on some contribution to at least one of the claims made by each of the named inventors. "Inventors may apply for a patent jointly even though (1) they did not physically work together or at the same time, (2) each did not make the same type or amount of contribution, or (3) each did not make a contribution to the subject matter of every claim of the patent." 35 U.S.C. 116. "[T]he statute neither states nor implies that two inventors can be 'joint inventors' if they have had no contact whatsoever and are completely unaware of each other"s work." What is required is some "quantum of collaboration or connection." In other words, " [f]or persons to be joint inventors under Section 116, there must be some element of joint behavior, such as collaboration or working under common direction, one inventor seeing a relevant report and building upon it or hearing another's suggestion at a meeting." Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Distrib. Co., 973 F.2d 911, 916-17, 23 USPQ2d 1921, 1925-26 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Moler v. Purdy, 131 USPQ 276, 279 (Bd. Pat. Inter. 1960) ("it is not necessary that the inventive concept come to both [joint inventors] at the same time").


關於「the doctrine of simultaneous conception and reduction to practice」（參見Fina Oil V. Ewen 資料來源）
That doctrine states that in some instances, an inventor may only be able to establish a conception by pointing to a reduction to practice through a successful experiment. See Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991).The doctrine of simultaneous conception and reduction to practice applies to the conception of the entire invention. Thus, it is applied in priority disputes to determine priority of conception as between one patent or application and another application.

Conception and reduction to practice of the entire claimed invention may be relevant to establish that a first person conceived of an invention before another person entered the scene, and that the first person is therefore the sole inventor. However, the doctrine cannot be used, as the district court did here, to show that because the first person did not conceive or reduce to practice the entire claimed invention, he or she did not at least contribute in some significant way to the ultimate conception.

“the doctrine of simultaneous conception and reduction to practice”係用來決定誰是第一發明人，但欲無法被適用於決定誰是發明人（he or she did not at least contribute in some significant way to the ultimate conception）。

申請人及發明人主體（一）

申請人及發明人主體（inventorship entity）（一）

35 U.S.C. 111：An application for patent shall be made, or authorized to be made, by the inventor, except as otherwise provided in this title.

相異於臺灣專利法，美國專利法35 U.S.C. 111規定：專利的申請案，必須由發明人或由發明人授權申請。

不過，該條還有其他的但書，如

35 U.S.C. 117：Legal representatives of deceased inventors and of those under legal incapacity may make application for patent upon compliance with the requirements and on the same terms and conditions applicable to the inventor.

發明人去逝或無法律上的行為能力，則可由合法代表人進行專利申請。

35 U.S.C. 118：Whenever an inventor （1）refuses to execute an application for patent, or （2）cannot be found or reached after diligent effort, a person to whom the inventor has assigned or agreed in writing to assign the invention or who otherwise shows sufficient proprietary interest in the matter justifying such action, may make application for patent on behalf of and as agent for the inventor on proof of the pertinent facts and a showing that such action is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties or to prevent irreparable damage; and the Director may grant a patent to such inventor upon such notice to him as the Director deems sufficient, and on compliance with such regulations as he prescribes.

當（1）發明人拒絕、或是（2）經勤勉努力尚無法找到發明人時，則具足夠之所有權利益的人（包括受讓人、發明人已同意受讓的人、專利權所有人）可以進行專利申請。

Judge Rich noted that this "completely ignores the requirement that patents are applied for 'in the name of the actual inventor or inventors' according to 37 C.F.R. Section 1.41(a) (1983)." "The inventor(s) must submit an oath or declaration attesting that they have 'reviewed and understand[ ] the contents of the specification' and believe 'the named inventor or inventors to be the original and first inventor or inventors of the subject matter which is claimed and for which a patent is sought.' 37 C.F.R. Section 1.63(b)(1), (2) (1992); see also 37 C.F.R. Section 1.51(a)(2) (1992)（資料來源）

發明人必須提交oath or declaration證實他們已復審及了解說明書內容，必且相信他們為原始發明人、且為第一個發明該發明的人。

另外，為提早取得申請日，oath or declaration可以於申請後再提交，不必與說明書同時提交。

【優先權】主張複數優先權

【優先權】主張複數優先權

本篇文章為轉貼源自哈金的討論版。


記得以前在此版曾討論過CIP的母案和子案之間的問題，內容大致如下

CIP母案揭露：A+B
CIP子案的一申請專利範圍中加入新事項C，而成為：A+B+C

在一判決中法官認為只有在母案有揭露的部分，子案的claim才可以享受優先權（應該用“享受母案的利益”比較符合美專的說法，見美專利法120條），CIP子案的A+B+C，不得享受CIP母案的優先權，而以母案已公開A+B，且由母案亦容易思及子案的A+B+C，故CIP子案不得取得專利。

我看完後自己的整理是，一個申請專利範圍的發明是一個整體，不能分割，所以A+B+C是一個申請專利範圍的發明，沒有記載於母案中，當然不能主張僅有A+B的優先權。

PS：應該是In Chu吧？我忘了，可以在MPEP討論CIP的章節或搜尋以前的討論應該找得到，目前我在放長假,所在地方網路不是很方便，所以不方便搜尋。

回到我們討論的主題，對於要真正了解優先權，應該還要考慮美專利法112條，我整理過覺得，應該要放棄A、B或A+B的方式來討論這個問題（不過，這見人見智吧！），才比較不會搞混。

我認為應該是以：

A申請案，整份說明書所揭露的內容為a
B申請案，整份說明書所揭露的內容為a、b
C申請案，整份說明書所揭露的內容為a、b、c，並且C申請案的申請專利範圍為claim1(a)、claim2(b)、claim3(c)

因此，若claim1(a)要主張申請案A為優先權時，則必須是以a的揭露範圍，在符合112的情況下，還能夠支持claim1(a)的申請專利範圍。相同的情況claim2(b) 要主張申請案B為優先權時，則必須是以b的揭露範圍，在符合112的情況下，還能夠支持claim2(b)的申請專利範圍。

再回過頭看看Nick前輩的例子，我認為應該這樣看：
A申請案，整份說明書所揭露的內容為a （特徵A）
B申請案，整份說明書所揭露的內容為a（特徵A）、b（特徵B，該特徵B係用以與特徵A結合，即特徵A+特徵B）

因此“特徵A+特徵B”的發明，只能主張一個申請案優先權，那就是B申請案，因為以A申請案的揭露的內容a ，根本不足以支持“特徵A+特徵B”的申請專利範圍。

最後，想討論這一句話：「因此，只有“OR-claim”才符合歐洲專利公約第八十七條與八十八條，可以主張複數優先權」。我覺得它值得討論，因為依邏輯來看，一個申請專利範圍的發明，只有一個申請案可以主張優先權。例如：

B申請案的揭露內容a（特徵A），不屬於第一次的申請案，無法被主張優先權，僅有揭露內容b（特徵B，該特徵B係用以與特徵A結合，即特徵A+特徵B）的部分，才可以被主張優先權。

當然，因為一個申請案有很多個“申請專利範圍的發明”，例如C案同時包含了一項“AND-claim”和一項“OR-claim”，所以就會有一個申請案主張複數個優先權的情況，不過「一個申請專利範圍的發明，邏輯上永遠只能以一個申請案主張優先權」。但是， “OR-claim”的“一個”申請專利範圍發明，為什麼卻可以主張複數優先權？其實，只要將“OR-claim”視為「一個項數中的“兩個”申請專利範圍發明」而不是「“一個”申請專利範圍發明」，在邏輯上就解譯的通了。

Nick前輩所提文章中，所要討論的是一申請案中的“AND-claim”和OR-claim”可不可以主張複數個優先權的問題，而不是一個申請案可不可以主張複數個優先權的問題。

請再參考：一、二

Keeping a Diary Patently專利事務管理系統2006

Keeping a Diary Patently
(image placeholder)

一、目的：
建立一個專利事務管理用控管系統
     
二、各處理表單的功能及設計理由說明：
案件處理，

• 案件資訊，輸入及顯示個案件的資訊，在右邊具有倒三角形的輸入格內，請匆直接輸入資料，而點選倒三角形選擇所慾輸入資訊，若找不到相關資料，請於“申請人”、“事務所”等表單新增完畢後，再回原處即可點選。


• 工作表單，新增工作項目，以便控管個人應處理工作，要新增一件申請案除了應先於“案件資訊”表單建立一項案件資訊的記錄外，還應在“工作表單”新增一項工作表單的記錄，例如「申請階段」之工作表單的記錄，如此方可利用搜尋“工作查詢”表單的方式，控管此案件。


• 工作查詢，用以根據不同的條件，搜尋工作表單，依各種不同的搜尋條件可達到不用的目的，在各條件未輸入任何值的情況下，使用預設值，預設值為管制日期即將於15天內到期且尚未結案的工作表單。也就是說，在各條件皆沒有輸入任何值的情況下，是否結案已預設為“N（意即未結案）”；管制日期的“迄日期”已預設為“今日+15天”。個人若要監控自己的工作項目，僅需再於員工欄點選自己，即可顯示管制日期在15天內到期且尚未結案的個人工作表單。另外，於結案選項中，“Y”代表已結案；“N”代表未結案；“*”代表已結案加未結案。


• 個人工作，選擇員工後顯示個人的工作表單，開始設計此程式時所做的，其實此表單可以用“工作查詢”表單來取代，只覺得刪除有點可惜就將它留著，下個版本可能會將它拿掉。

基本資料，包括

• 申請人，輸入及顯示申請人資訊。


• 事務所，輸入及顯示事務所資訊。


• 員工，輸入及顯示員工資訊。


• 本社資訊，輸入及顯示自己公司的資訊，當此表單內的“公司名稱”更變時，起始表單頂端處的資訊也會更變。

基本設定，包括

• 階段，專利案件的各處理階段，可依自己公司的程序新增。


• 工作類型，依公司的制度建立，較有規模的公司每一專利處理階段都會由不同的部門處理，小規模公司一個專利工程師處理所有的事情就可不必建立，但我覺得還是至少建立個“管理”和“工程”兩種，因為有兩個表單由兩個人監控，時可以確保單一個人輸入管制期限犯錯，或精神狀態不佳時忽略一個重要工作表單等。


• 案件類型，依各國制度新增。


• 職稱，依公司制度新增。

三、工具列功能

(image placeholder)

工具列的各項目功能和說明都很直接，請直接試試便可知道其功能，僅說明“模式切換”。

(image placeholder)       (image placeholder)

因為Access資料庫的預設情況下，於表單內輸入完資料後不必執行儲存動作，直接離開該記錄，所輸入的資料會自動被儲存。為避免開起表單後，不經意地按到鍵盤而造成資料改變，本系統的重要表單預設為不可編輯，並都加入了“檢視模式”和“編輯模式”的設計，開起表單後預設為檢視模式僅供檢視表單用，點選“模式切換”後，表單會更變成編輯模式，即可進行編輯或新增。

四、其他注意事項
1、此系統目前版本僅是初步的開發階段，想提供給所有人試用測試，老實說自己是將目標定在商業化，不過我很懷疑是否真的能做到那個地步，當然啦若有一天真的商業化，我會開放給個人使用者有限制地使用。在開發階段，這個系統不會有任何限制，希能能提供很多人使用，並得到使用此系統的意見，讓我對此系統加入新的功能及改進，所以若有什麼意見或需求，歡迎多多來信，謝謝。
2、由於某些原因，在某些資料表當中某些項必須輸入有資料，否則在搜尋時會出現錯誤，因此本系統預先在該等項中使用如“Ides13”、ides13@gmail.com、“今日”、“今日+60”等的預設值，在該些項中，若不使用預設值，亦請務必輸入資料。
3、關於安全性的問題，可以自行使用Access的安全性功能。在分享此資料庫前，原也想加入保護此資料庫不被更改設計的功能，但最後決定放棄加入安全性的功能，希望留給會Access的使用者最大的空間（^_^）。將來的商業化版本，如果有那麼一天的話，將會加入安全性的功能。

五、商業行為
1、我想在此資料庫中加入廣告，目前僅決定在“事務所”表單（資料表）中加入，讓它成為預設的資料，有興趣的人請與我連絡（ides13@gmail.com），謝謝。
2、若您願意無條件贊助我繼續開發此軟體，亦歡迎您與我連絡。

六、關於「Keeping a Diary Patently專利事務管理系統2006」
首頁：http://patentdic.blogspot.com/
Email：ides13@gmail.com
程式下載：http://ides13.googlepages.com/KeepingADiaryPatently.exe
來信時，最好將信件“標題”設為「Keeping a Diary Patently」，避免讓我不小心誤以為垃圾信，沒看就直接將它刪了。

【claim】用功能來限定請求項

【claim】用功能來限定請求項

依據中國的2001年10月第一次印刷的審查指南

• 第2-25頁第1至3行的記載：「權利要求的概括應當適當，使其保護範圍正好適當於說明書所公開的內容。對於權利要求概括得是否恰當，審查員應當參照與之相關的現有技術進行判斷」；


• 第2-26頁第10至16行記載：「所屬技術領域的技術人員用常規的實驗或者分析方法不足以把說明書記載的內容擴展到權利要求所述保護範圍時，審查員應當要求申請人作出解釋，說明所屬技術領域人員在說明書給出情報的基礎上，能夠容易地將發明或實用新型擴展到權利要求的保護範圍」；及


• 第2-26頁第10至16行記載：「如果所屬技術領域的技術人員能夠明了此功能還可以採用說明書中未提到的其他替代方式來完成的話，則權利要求中用功能限定該特徵的寫法是允許的，如果說明書中描述的功能是以一種特定方式完成的，沒有說明其他替代方式，而權利要求卻概括了本領域技述人員不能明了的完成該功能的其他方法或者全部方法，則是不允許的」。

PS：不小心看到中國審查指南，不小心看到有關說明書的記載，及其所能支持申請專利範圍大小的規定，舉証「所屬技術領域人員在說明書給出情報的基礎上，能夠容易地將發明或實用新型擴展到權利要求的保護範圍」，是希望擴大申請專利範圍的重點。

【Link】Google video的知財演講

【Link】Google video的知財演講

幾個關於知財的video演講。

Intellectual Property: How to Review a Patent Application

A study by LegalMetric shows that the win rate for patent owners fell in 2005 (compared to 2004) from 64 percent to 63 percent.

Eben Moglen on intellectual property law

新增幾個有關智財的影音資料，全是英文的，可用做英聽練習。
Linda Thayer of Finnegan Henderson gave this presentation to members of the Intellectual Property

The NTP v. RIM (Blackberry) Case

【實施】間接侵害的幾個美國判例

【實施】間接侵害的幾個美國判例

昨天看到的日本判例後，覺得有些疑問，於是找出這本我在日本舊書攤買的書來看，果然真的有記載，這幾個判例摘自「美國特許訴訟（ISDN 4-8271-0190-6）」：

Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365U.S. 336, 1961
「沒有直接侵害的存在就沒有間接侵權」是最高法院在上述判例的判決。實質上是追認1952年修法以前的判例原則（Graham Paper Co. v. International Paper Co. 46F. 2d881, 1931年）。既然如此，那麼直接侵害的發生僅是預測就已充分，或是必須是直接侵害終了？依據判例的話，僅是直接侵害的預測（Threatened Infringement）已充足確定間接侵害成立（Graham Paper Co. v. International Paper Co. 46F. 2d881, 1931年）。

再考慮下面2個情況：一、直接侵害在美國外而間接侵害在美國內；二、直接侵害在美國內而間接侵害在美國外。上述二情況下，會造成間接侵害嗎？

第一種情況可參考「Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406U.S. 519, 1972年」的判例，最高法院否定了間接侵害的成立。第二種情況可參考「Engineered Sports Prods. V. Brundswick Corp., 362F. Supp. 722 1973年」，判決中強調第271條（c）的措詞，判決間接侵害行為沒有沒有限定在美國國內的理由。儘管如此，這會發生裁判管轄權的問題，因此將來還會再起糾紛。

再來，再想想有關專利權快屆滿的問題。當間接侵害行為在專利權期間中而直接侵害在專利權屆滿後，間接侵害會成立嗎？結論為否，理由同場所類推。最後，間接侵害行為在專利權設定前，而直接侵害在專利權設定後時，又如何？判例尚且分岐沒有統一的見解（此書為1984年出版）。將上述結果整理成表格如下：

  

【實施】間接侵害的幾個日本判例（一）

【實施】間接侵害的幾個日本判例（一）

摘自：間接侵害的幾個日本判例

１．装飾化粧版の壁面接着施行法事件（大阪地判昭和５４年２月１６日 昭和５２（ワ）３６５４）
原告： 「合成樹脂系弾性材による柱状の圧着材を中間に備えた釘」の特許権者
被告： 「万能かり止めくぎ」の製造・販売業者
（請求の趣旨） 被告製品の製造・販売の差止、被告製品の廃棄
（争点） 被告製品は本件方法発明の実施にのみ使用する物か
 （判旨） 「他の用途」とは実験的又は一時的な使用の可能性だけでは足りず、商業的、経済的にも実用性ある用途として社会通念上承認され、かつ原則として実用化されていることが必要である。被告の主張する他の用途に、被告のくぎを使って使えなくはないとしても、それらの用法が現実に一般的に通用定着していない以上、他の用途が存在するとはいえない。

日本專利法第101條第1項規定「在產業上僅使用於生產該專利物品的物」為間接侵權，試問：實驗或暫時的使用會屬於其他用途，而不屬於“僅”的範圍嗎？

（判旨）所謂「其他用途」，僅是實驗或暫時之使用的可能性是不足夠的，必須是商業上、經濟上具實用性用途而於社會傳統概念上所被承認，且原則上已有實用化。雖然被告不能不使用地將釘子使用於被告所主張的其他用途，但即然該等用法現實上還沒有一般性地通用固定化，則不能解譯成存在有其他用途。

--------------------------------------------------------
PS：「被告のくぎを使って使えなくはない」這一句是什麼意思啊？
此處的の應為が的轉變而來。

間接侵害的幾個日本判例（五）

【實施】間接侵害的幾個日本判例（五）

摘自：間接侵害的幾個日本判例

５．ポリオレフィン用透明剤事件 （大阪地判平成１２年１２月２１日）

原告： 「超微粒ソルビトールアセタール及びキシリトールアセタールを含有するポリオレフィン組成物」の発明の特許権者
被告： 透明材を外国向けにのみ輸出・販売する業者。
 （請求の趣旨） 被告製品の製造・販売の差止、損害賠償
 （争点） 被告製品は、本件発明の実施にのみ使用する物か
 （判旨） 特許法２条３項にいう「生産」「実施」は日本国内におけるもののみを意味すると解すべきである。したがって、１０１条１号の「その物の生産にのみ使用する物」における「生産」、「その発明の実施にのみ使用する物」における「実施」は、日本国内におけるものに限られると解するのが相当である。被告製品を材料とした本件発明の実施は、外国においてのみ行われるため、被告製品は本件発明の実施にのみ使用する物とはいえない。

日本專利法第101條第1項規定「僅使用於實施該發明的物」為間接侵權，若被告製品為以國外輸出為導向的實施專利發明的材料，那麼試問：這被解譯成屬於「僅使用於實施該發明的物」嗎？

（判旨）專利法第2條第3項所謂的「生產」「實施」應解譯為僅在日本國內者的意思，因此，第101條第1項「僅使用於實施該發明的物」的「實施」解譯成限定於日本國內者係為適當的。以被告製品作為材料之本發明的實施，由於僅在國外實施，被告製品不能解譯成僅使用於本案發明的實施。

PS：間接侵權的前提在於直接侵權，所以在日本國內沒有直接侵權的事實，就不會有間接侵權的行為。此案例中，若被告製品為國內使用導向，那麼在國內就會有直接侵權的事實，而有可能被判為有間接侵權。（這樣想對嗎？我只是到處亂看文章沒有受過正式的教育，我的想法應該有很多是錯的，但隨便想想好玩而已。）

【103】數值限定發明的臨界義意

【103】數值限定發明的臨界義意

摘自：
審査基準（平成６年度改正特許法等における審査及び審判の運用）2.6(2)項は、数値限定発明における臨界的意義について、「引用発明の延長線上」のとき、すなわち「相違が数値限定の有無のみで、課題が共通する場合」は、「その数値限定の内と外で有利な効果において量的に顕著な差異があることが要求される。」としながらも、続けて「しかし、課題が異なり、有利な効果が異質である場合は、数値限定を除いて両者が同じ発明を特定するための事項を有していたとしても、数値限定に臨界的意義を要しない。」としている。

日本審查基準2.6（2）項，針對數值限定發明的臨界意義，有如下說明「在引用發明的延長線上」時，亦即「相異點僅在數值限定的有無且課題共通時，則要求在該數值限定的內與外，有利的效果應具有量的顯著差異」，同時接著說明「但是，課題相異且有利的效果是相異種類時，除數值限定外，即使有兩者特定相同發明的情事，數值限定亦不需要有臨界的意義」


PS：數值限定發明當真需要有臨界意義嗎？這要看發明的本身。若發明的創新性特徵在於數值本身，那麼當然需要有臨界意義；但若發明的創新性特徵在於其他特徵，數值的限定僅是附隨的，那麼該數值就不需要有臨界意義。

【辭典】moot 沒有實際的意義

【辭典】moot 沒有實際的意義

findlaw：
deprived of practical significance: made abstract or purely academic

"Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 51-89 have been considered but are moot in view of the ground(s) of rejection."

已細想了申請人對請求項51-58的爭論，但是考慮到拒絕理由後，申請人的爭論並沒有實際的意義。

【112】數值限定發明與支持要件

【112】數值限定發明與支持要件

平成１７年（行ケ）第１００４２号　特許取消決定取消請求事件（平成１７年１０月７日口頭弁論終結）

日本法院對“參數發明”其支持要件所作的解譯

パラメータ発明に関するものであるところ，このような発明において，特許請求の範囲の記載が，明細書のサポート要件に適合するためには，発明の詳細な説明は，その数式が示す範囲と得られる効果（性能）との関係の技術的な意味が，特許出願時において，具体例の開示がなくとも当業者に理解できる程度に記載するか，又は，特許出願時の技術常識を参酌して，当該数式が示す範囲内であれば，所望の効果（性能）が得られると当業者において認識できる程度に，具体例を開示して記載することを要するものと解するのが相当である。

對於參數發明，為使申請專利範圍的記載符合說明書的支持要件，發明的詳細說明，對於該數學式所示範圍與所得到效果（性能）之關係的技術意義，需要記載至於專利申請時即使沒有具體例的揭示該行業者也能夠理解的程度；或者需要揭示具體例，並記載至該行業者，參酌專利申請時的技術常識，只要是該數學式所示範圍內的話，就可以了解能夠得到期望之效果（性能）的程度。

PS：在撰寫數值限定發明、數學式的限定發明、參數型限定發明時，應時時留意，所撰寫的發明內容，是否真的已使所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者能夠了解的程度，不應僅揭示如「較佳的情況係3-5，更佳的情況係4-4.5」等的數值，還必需揭示至使所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者能夠了解該選擇數值的意義（技術意義或臨界意義）的程度。

PPS：用字學。在學專利的時候，常常那到干擾，因為有些時候有些用語表達是相同或類似的概念，但卻應該清楚地分成美國及臺灣（日本亦同）兩種，例如支持要件。在美國就我所知應該是enablement或written description。

PPPS：很好用的google blog search，這是我寫blog的原因，也是在blog中放了很多連結的原因，記錄自己所讀的資料，忘了以後方便搜尋回想，以及找其他相關連結的資料，很方便，當很多人blogger寫“專利事”時，google blog search的功能又更能顯現出來。

【實施】間接侵害

【實施】間接侵害

對於間接侵害，我國雖然沒有明文的規定，但是專利法第八十六條規定：「用作侵害他人發明專利權行為之物，或由其行為所生之物，得以被侵害人之請求施行假扣押，於判決賠償後，作為賠償金之全部或一部。」

所謂的“用作侵害他人發明專利權行為之物”並沒有限定為整體的物，因此可以解譯成專利物品的零件、製造專利物品的機器等；也不問該物為何人，所以只要該物是用作侵害他人專利權，就已經符合了法定要件，但尚應再考慮其是否以侵害專利權為唯一用途；或是應考慮其行為是否出於惡意，然後決定有沒有本條規定的適用。

間接侵害之所以具有可罰性，是因為這種行為的實質，等於共同參與了侵害專利權的行為。

可再參考：「專利法實務」李茂堂著

PS：日本的幾篇文：一、二、三；較完整的三篇：四、五、六。

特許法１０１条１号、同２号に関する解釈について争われたものである。判旨にも示されているように、「業としてその物の生産にのみ使用する物」（特許法１０１条１号）と、「業としてその発明の実施にのみ使用する物」（特許法１０１条２号）とされている。

相異於臺灣的規定，日本特許法的規定為「僅使用於生產該專利物品的物」，對於間接侵害有更嚴格的限制。

【更新】20160817

但以前的專利法第86條已被修正，目前能夠找到的對應法條應該是專利法第96條。於該條第3項規定「…或從事侵害行為之原料或器具，…。」

「從事侵害行為之原料或器具」對應「用作侵害他人發明專利權行為之物」。

專利法

第九十六條　發明專利權人對於侵害其專利權者，得請求除去之。有侵害之虞者，得請求防止之。
    發明專利權人對於因故意或過失侵害其專利權者，得請求損害賠償。
    發明專利權人為第一項之請求時，對於侵害專利權之物或從事侵害行為之原料或器具，得請求銷毀或為其他必要之處置。
    專屬被授權人在被授權範圍內，得為前三項之請求。但契約另有約定者，從其約定。
    發明人之姓名表示權受侵害時，得請求表示發明人之姓名或為其他回復名譽之必要處分。
    第二項及前項所定之請求權，自請求權人知有損害及賠償義務人時起，二年間不行使而消滅；自行為時起，逾十年者，亦同。

【102】【103】數值限定發明

【102】【103】數值限定發明
曾預告過要研究數值限定發明的，原本也真希望好好地寫一篇長一點、嚴謹一點的文章的，最後事與願違。以下，從日本的判例，及日本弁理士所寫文章中，做簡單的整理。
專利法係准予發明人專利權，作為發明人公開發明的代價，其目的在於藉由發明的公開促進技術的進步，貢獻產業之發展。若該發明與先前技術所記載的發明，兩者係為實質上相同亦即不具新穎性；或差異的部分不大亦即不具進步性，則雖然公開了發明，還是無法促進技術的進步，不應准予專利。
數值限定發明相異於一般的發明，其特徵為：在習知技術中選取較佳的範圍。因此，數值限定發明係為習知技術的一實施例，其僅不過是在習知技術上，附上數值限定的特徵，該數值限定原本亦屬於習知技術的範圍不應准予專利，必竟在實施習知技術時一定會選擇某一數值，但是，若該數值限定其所選定的數值範圍係為較佳的情況，能夠使該數值範圍具有技術的意義，亦即說明選擇該數值範圍之上限或下限的理由（技術的意義）；而且，該數值範圍之上限或下限具有臨界的意義，亦即該數值範圍並非容易思及，那麼，該數值之上限或下限的公開就能夠促進技術的進步，得准予專利。
=========
可參照臺灣法院的判例來看：
選擇發明：
惟查專利審查基準第1-2-24頁 明文：「選擇發明，係指選擇已知上位概念發明之下位概念而作為構成要件之發明，‧‧‧，因已知發明並未有具體之揭示，‧‧‧，只要其較已知發明具非顯而易 知之突出功效，此選擇發明即非能輕易完成。」而所謂「選擇已知上位概念發明之下位概念而作為構成要件之發明」，依同基準第1-2-26頁明文乃指「對已知發明或習知技術內容中之某些參數條件，如組成、溫度、壓力、流速等加以數值上（量）的界定之發明」，該基準於第1-2-25頁以及1-2-26頁並舉出數個上、下位概念之例示，兩相對照，足見前揭經濟部經（八六）訴字第八六六零八八一五號訴願決定書對上下位概念觀點之有所謬誤，而顯然違背專利審查基準之規定。（源自：淺論專利審查基準之性質 台灣國際專利法律事務所律師 陳智超）
ps：我覺得數值發明當然可以視為一種選擇發明。我沒有下載判例來看，想看卻不知道怎麼下載或去哪裡下載。但從陳律師的文章來看，完全沒有討論到「技術的意義」及「臨界的意義」，也許臺灣法院和日本法院的見解不一樣。


1. US MPEP 2131.02 (Genus-Species Situations),
2. US MPEP 2131.03 (anticipation of range),
3. US MPEP 2144.05 (obviousness of ranges)
4. 中國專利審查指南第二部分第三章 p.159 (2-41)

專利教學網站

專利教學網站
【2006/3/1】
Principles of patent law

雖然沒有提供什麼內容，但卻有一些相關case的名稱。

【2006/1/25】
FUNDAMENTALS OF SOFTWARE PATENT PRACTICING

Lecture
1. Patent Low
2. Examination Guidelines for Computer-Related Inventions
3. Novelty
4. Statutory Subject Matter
5. Non-Obviousness
6. Patent Claims
7. Claim Analysis

【103】Unexpected Results 不可預期的效果

【103】Unexpected Results 不可預期的效果

長久以來，對於“不可預期”這個字，一直很不明白，今天發現了一篇簡報，讀完它並且瀏覽（真的只是瀏覽）了M.P.E.P. Section 716.02, Allegations Of Unexpected Results，在看簡報時感覺好像懂了一點點。但看MPEP的時候，就覺得是完全看不懂，這一章它到底要說什麼？

Rule 132 Declarations and Unexpected Results（by  Richard E. Schafer Administrative Patent Judge Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences）：
Unexpected Results
Results which would be viewed as surprisingly better or superior by a person of ordinary skill in the art
That which is surprising to one having ordinary skill in the art is not predictable nor obvious
Merely superior or better is not enough – must be surprisingly or unexpectedly better
Proof of synergy does not necessarily prove unexpected results
Synergy– a property which may be unexpected or not based on the particular facts


SOME THOUGHTS ABOUT UNEXPECTED RESULTS JURISPRUDENCE（By Harris A. Pitlick）
[W]hen an applicant demonstrates substantially improved results, as Soni did here, and states that the results were unexpected, this should suffice to establish unexpected results in the absence of evidence to the contrary.[45]

申請人只要聲明其結果是unexpected，那麼在沒有相反證據的情況下，即足以證明其發明具不可預期的效果（Unexpected Results）。

也許要證明“不可預期”的效果僅需要依Rule 132 提Declarations即可吧，至於為什麼要求那麼低程度的舉證責任，也許就是上篇文章作者所說的：
To put it in other words, the majority's standard seems to work a balancing test--the greater the magnitude of the difference in results, the smaller is the burden to show that the difference is unexpected.

PS：上篇文章很值得讀讀，只是要懂好難，英文又爛不加強不行。

【103】未揭示的優點及固有特性

【103】未揭示的優點及固有特性

為要克服103的進步性理由，即使其有利的功效沒有揭示於說明書中，只要該有利功效是固有的特性，那麼在答辯中提出即可。

716.02(f) Advantages Disclosed or Inherent

We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant's evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution.

【101】【112】關於enablement requirement和utility requirement

【101】【112】關於enablement requirement和utility requirement

今天不小心看到一篇糾正我錯誤觀念的判例，關於enablement requirement和utility requirement。好久以前，曾看過一篇文章提到utility requirement不是很重要，但看來似乎不是喔！

試想“必要元件”，這個在臺灣使用的詞，表示claim必須限定到發明能夠“實施”的程度，那麼美國呢？相對於臺灣使用的“必要元件”，你覺得應該是屬於“enablement requirement”還是“utility requirement”？

PROCESS CONTROL CORPORATION, v. HYDRECLAIM CORPORATION

Lack of enablement and absence of utility are closely related grounds of unpatentability. See  Raytheon Co. v. Roper Corp. , 724 F.2d 951, 956, 220 USPQ 592, 596 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The enablement requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 1 requires that the specification adequately discloses to one skilled in the relevant art how to make, or in the case of a process, how to carry out, the claimed invention without undue experimentation.  See Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, A/S , 108 F.3d 1361, 1365, 42 USPQ2d 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The utility requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101 mandates that any patentable invention be useful and, accordingly, the subject matter of the claim must be operable. See  Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. , 977 F.2d 1555, 1571, 24 USPQ2d 1401, 1412 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If a patent claim fails to meet the utility requirement because it is not useful or operative, then it also fails to meet the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement.

112的enablement requirement要求說明書適當的揭示，以在不需要undue experimentation的情況下，使one skilled in the relevant art能夠知道how to make, or in the case of a process, how to carry out, the claimed invention。相對於此，
101的utility requirement則是要求任何可專利的發明必須useful，因此其claim的主題必須是operable。當不符合utility requirement時，同時也不能滿足the how-to-use aspect of the enablement requirement。

In Raytheon , we held certain process claims invalid, stating
[b]ecause it is for the invention as claimed that enablement must clearly exist, and because the impossible cannot be enabled, a claim containing a limitation impossible to meet may be held invalid under § 112. Moreover, when a claim requires a means for accomplishing an unattainable result, the claimed invention must be considered inoperative as claimed and the claim must be held invalid under either § 101 or § 112 of 35 U.S.C.

上段模模糊糊的，這段更清楚了，包含一個limitation impossible to meet是不符合112，而缺少一個a means for accomplishing an unattainable result是不符合101。

PS：以前我從來沒有想過這會和101有關，算是糾正了我的觀念吧。

【辭典】offering for sale 要約

【辭典】offering for sale 要約

來源：
「申出による販売」は、TRIPS第28条の基づき、定められた行為で、英語では「offering for sale」になり、商品のカタログや価格表などを送付し、それに係わる広告をし、又は競売広告をし、あるいは販売のために展示する場合です。

要約係為基於TRIPS第28條所規定的行為，係指為寄送商品的目錄、價格表等；進行販賣相關的廣告；進行販賣相關競標廣告；或為該販賣的展示等的情形。

【112】【103】發明所達成的功效與112

【112】【103】發明所達成的功效與112

Case AQUATEX INDUSTRIES, INC., v. TECHNICHE SOLUTIONS

The district court based its nonenablement judgment on two grounds: (1) lack of utility or inoperability and (2) undue experimentation needed to carry out the invention.

【112】

The district court considered that "the first wafers processed with the Full Flow system appeared clean to the naked eye" but looked "filthy" viewed using laser scanning.

At the outset, the district court erred in requiring that the patent disclosures enable a single embodiment, the Full Flow system, to meet TI’s commercial standards.  In essence, the district court set the enablement bar too high.  Enablement does not require an inventor to meet lofty standards for success in the commercial marketplace.  Title 35 does not require that a patent disclosure enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use a perfected, commercially viable embodiment absent a claim limitation to that effect.  

Title 35 requires only that the inventor enable one of skill in the art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention.  Thus, when an invention claims a general system to improve the cleaning process for semiconductor wafers, the disclosure enables that invention by showing improvements in the overall system.  See, e.g., Engel Indus., Inc. v. Lockformer Co., 946 F.2d 1528, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“The enablement requirement is met if the description enables any mode of making and using the claimed invention.”).  Of course, if a patent claimed a system that achieved cleanliness up to a specified numerical particle-free range, then enablement would require disclosure of a method that enables one of ordinary skill to achieve that range without undue experimentation.  Thus, the level of disclosure necessary to satisfy section 112 of title 35 varies according to the scope of the claimed invention.  Durel Corp. v. Osram Sylvania Inc., 256 F.3d 1298, 1306-07 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

專利法112要求 “enablement”，但是應“enablement”到什麼樣的程度？這就要視說明書中所聲稱之發明所達成的功效而定。因此，如果「if a patent claimed a system that achieved cleanliness up to a specified numerical particle-free range, then enablement would require disclosure of a method that enables one of ordinary skill to achieve that range without undue experimentation」。故在寫發明所達成的功效時，最好僅是一般的描述，不要寫的太明確，不然所要求的“enablement”程度也會變的很高。

你能分清什麼是inoperative？什麼是enablement嗎？
The district court essentially concluded that the invention claimed in the patents at issue simply did not work, that is, could not clean wafers, and therefore it would require undue experimentation to carry out the invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2000). This court has recognized the relationship between the enablement requirement of § 112 and the utility requirement of § 101. See, e.g., In re Swartz, 232 F.3d 862, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ("[I]f the claims in an application fail to meet the utility requirement because the invention is inoperative, they also fail to meet the enablement requirement because a person skilled in the art cannot practice the invention"); EMI Group N. Am., Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp., 268 F.3d 1342, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001). In this case, however, the district court similarly set the standard for utility too high for this invention. While the district court's major premise is correct that an inoperable invention is not enabled, the district court erred in its minor premise that the claimed invention is inoperable and lacks utility.

The inoperability standard for utility applies primarily to claims with impossible limitations. See, e.g., Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (claims found inoperable because they require violating the principle of conservation of mass); Newman v. Quigg, 877 F.2d 1575 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (claims to a perpetual motion machine ruled inoperable). Moreover, where a patent discloses several alternative combinations of methods (as most systems claims will), the party asserting inoperability must show that all disclosed alternatives are inoperative or not enabled. EMI Group, 268 F.3d at 1349. The '532 and '123 patents do not claim an impossible result or an inoperative invention.

Even if the single Full Flow embodiment does not achieve complete cleaning, that alone would not render the invention inoperative.

簡單地說成不符合utility requirement【101】就是不inoperative；而不符合enablement requirement【112】 就是不enablement，這樣解釋對嗎？

【103】
(obviousness requires a suggestion of all limitations in a claim). Therefore the examiner did not appear to resort to consideration of secondary considerations, such as the unexpected results and advantages in the quoted statements, to surmount the obviousness objection. In sum, the advantages advocacy was not as highly material as the district court seemed to think.

An applicant cannot prove unexpected results with attorney argument and bare statements without objective evidentiary support. See In re Lindner, 457 F.2d 506, 508 (CCPA 1972); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("attorney argument [is] not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness"); In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1995) ("It is well settled that unexpected results must be established by factual evidence. Mere argument or conclusory statements . . . [do] not suffice."

顯而易知性需要Claim所有的限制條件都被暗示，另外光是用說的，還是無法克服prima facie case of obviousness，需要有objective evidentiary support。這讓我想到了有一次為客戶寫答辯搞，客戶聲稱他的發明的一個優點，可以卻又不提出實驗證據，不知該那件案子的審查委員會怎麼樣審那案子？事實上，用說的比較快，要做實驗的話真的很麻煩的，我很懷疑在現實的實務上，會僅為中間程序的處理而做實驗取數據，進行答辯。

【Claim】用語限定為習知技術時就不包含未來的技術

【Claim】用語限定為習知技術時就不包含未來的技術

KOPYKAKE ENTERPRISES v. The Lucks Company

於此案中，Kopykake將“screen printing”限定為習知技術：
[T]he pictorial images will be referred to as being applied to the base shapes by “screen printing”, it being understood that the term screen printing as used herein encompasses not only conventional screen printing, but also includes any other conventional printing process and any other conventional means and methods of applying the pictorial images to the base shapes, unless the context should indicate otherwise.

SUPERGUIDE CORPORATION, V. DIRECTV ENTERPRISES, INC., DIRECTV, INC.,
The limitation at issue in Kopykake required "screen printing" of images on foodstuffs and the accused product used "ink jet printing." Id. at 1380. Thus, the issue was whether the claim language "screen printing" literally covered ink jet printing. Id. The specification explicitly defined the term "screen printing" as limited to "'conventional'" or then-existing technologies. Id. Specifically, the specification stated that "'the term screen printing as used herein encompasses not only conventional screen printing, but also includes any other conventional printing process and any other conventional means.'" Id. (citation omitted). Although ink jet systems were well known in the field of paper printing, it was not a conventional printing process for applying images to foodstuffs. Id. at 1383-84. We therefore held that ink jet printing was not covered by the claim term at issue. Id. at 1384. That holding, however, does not have relevance here because the patentees in Kopykake explicitly limited the claim term to technologies that were "conventional" at the time of the invention. In contrast, the '578 patentees did not explicitly limit the disputed claim language to technologies that were "conventional" at the time of the invention.

之後的技術“ink jet printing”，雖然在發明當時已廣泛使用於“paper printing”但是因為不同領域的關係，因此“screen printing”被解譯成不包含“ink jet printing”。

下面也有一個類似的案例，
PC Connector Solutions sued SmartDisk and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A. for patent infringement of 5,224,216.
As a consequence, the terms “normally,” “conventional,” “traditionally,” and “standard” are governed by their ordinary and customary meanings, and that, in view of their implicit time-dependence, …….

有趣的Tip一定要看一下：
Tip to patent prosecutors: leave convention, tradition, and normality to psychologists and sociologists. Claim just the facts, as if they were timeless.

PS：寫說明書時，請小心使用“習知”等字眼，尤其是Kopykake案例中的情形，感覺很容易犯錯，雖然在claim中無“習知”的限定，但在說明書中定義時加入這樣的字眼，在解釋申請專利範圍時還是有可能產生限制的，讓我覺得奇怪的是，文義解譯雖然不能包含未來技術，但均等論應該可以包含未來的技術才是啊？此案中為什麼都沒有討論要不要適用均等論的問題？

【Claim】公示放棄原則與112

【Claim】公示放棄原則與112

The Toro Company v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., et al.

In Johnson & Johnston, this court held that
when a patent drafter discloses but declines to claim subject matter . . . this action dedicates that unclaimed subject matter to the public.  Application of the doctrine of equivalents to recapture subject matter deliberately left unclaimed would “conflict with the primacy of the claims in defining the scope of the patentee’s exclusive right.”

the disclosure-dedication rule 公示放棄原則：
有揭示但卻沒有claim的範圍，視為貢獻於公眾，不論是文意範圍或是均等範圍。

於此案中，原告Toro提出因所揭示的內容揭露不足，故不能適用the disclosure-dedication rule。CAFC法官則認為，即使揭露不足一樣會適用公示放棄原則：
As noted above, the written description necessary to support a claim construction is not necessarily the same as the disclosure of subject matter needed to invoke the disclosure-dedication rule.  Material that is explicitly disclaimed in the specification—like the disclaimer of a removable ring in this case—is disclosed for purposes of the disclosure-dedication rule, but it cannot be encompassed within the scope of the claims.

此判例中CAFC法官還對Law of the Case做了些解譯。

【摘譯】
this claim construction “did not and could not import into the claim a function from the specification, particularly when the claim recites only purely structural limitations.”  Id. (citing E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 1988)).

解譯申請專利範圍，不會也不能從說明書中將功能引進申請專利範圍內，尤其是當申請專利範圍僅純粹敘述結構上的限制條件。

【摘譯】【Claim】CAFC判例中適用逆均等論次數

【摘譯】【Claim】CAFC判例中適用逆均等論次數

TATE ACCESS FLOORS, INC v. INTERFACE ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

Not once has this court affirmed a decision finding noninfringement based on the reverse doctrine of equivalents.  And with good reason: when Congress enacted 35 U.S.C. § 112, after the decision in Graver Tank, it imposed requirements for the written description, enablement, definiteness, and means-plus-function claims that are co-extensive with the broadest possible reach of the reverse doctrine of equivalents. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 & n.5, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1849-50 & n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (rejecting Commissioner's argument that by enacting § 112 Congress intended only to codify the reverse doctrine of equivalents and thereby to render the requirements applicable only in the litigation context, and therefore holding that the requirements of § 112, ¶ 6 apply to all interpretations of means-plus-function claim language, but noting that one result of enacting § 112 may have been to codify the reverse doctrine of equivalents); cf. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 62 F.3d 1512, 1569, 35 USPQ2d 1641, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (Nies, J., dissenting) (noting that the reverse doctrine of equivalents was originally used by the courts to reduce the scope of broad "means" claims to "cover only what the inventor discloses and equivalents thereof"), rev'd and remanded, 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997).

本庭未曾確定基於逆均等論之非侵害的判決。

PS：逆均等論原是過去用於限縮功能手段用語之請求項的權利範圍，現在僅是法理上存在的一個理論，實際運用上是很少的，通常它的部分，都會被正確的「申請專利範圍解譯（Claim construction）」給取代。

今在一本書看到CAFC的一個判例“SRI international v. Matsushita Electric”，此判例認為，沒有足夠的差異，主張依逆均等論確定非侵害，此判例中亦有反對立場的少數意見，可以參考。

【Link】一些值得讀的文章及電子書

【Link】一些值得讀的文章及電子書

好久以前整理的，不過也好久沒有更新了，書，要是真的能讓人給讀完就好了。

１０１大道：
USPTO上的101訓練教材●35 U.S.C. 101 Training Materials 　●Bioinformatics & §101　
●Software Protection: Patents：在網路上看到的文章　
(image placeholder)
(image placeholder)
１０3大道： 美國歐洲日本進步性之比較
(image placeholder)
美專112：（整準備開始研究，列一下在google找到的資料）
●美國專利商標局提出「書面揭示要件」審查基準 「書面揭示要件 ...
●生物技術審查基準之國際趨勢
●{DOC}美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院Honeywell Int'lv

●Patent Validity and Scope
●SYNOPSIS OF APPLICATION OF WRITTEN DESCRIPTION GUIDELINES：uspto上的資料，介紹written description的審查基準。
●the evolving application of the written description requirement to biotechnological inventions：此篇介紹了written description requirement的歷史，一定要看，推薦！
●The Postmodern Written Description Requirement: An Analysis of the ...： 大部分都是在講有關生技專利中，將依據“written description”的rejection，應用到一開始所提出專利說明書之原請求項的問題，因為這個要件在以前不會被認為會限制原請求項，必竟原請 求項也是說明書的一部分，可惜我對written description 的觀念似懂非懂的，所以沒辦法完全看懂，建議先讀完上一篇再讀這篇，我是倒著讀的，因為網路的資料如海賊王中偉大的航道一樣，沒有地圖只好靠著羅盤自己到 處逛，小弟的願望與娜米相同，做個“自學專利地圖”，提供小弟一路學專利的路徑。●其他按一下： 用google搜尋還真的可以找到一堆關於112的許多文章，關鍵字是用「the evolving application of the written description requirement to biotechnological inventions」。
(image placeholder)
解譯申請專利範圍
均等論●Johnson & Johnston Washes Away the Doctrine of Equivalents：有關說明書有揭露，而claims沒有請求，則此部分認定為貢獻給大眾的論文，介紹了三個重要的case，其中先前兩個是互相相反的案例。●Doctrine of Equivalents – It’s not all about Festo●貳、案情背景：專利老前輩羅先生的文章。●An Analysis of Trends in the Construction of US Patent Claims : 1997-2002...：解譯申請專利範圍的論文，介紹了很多的原則，推薦！
(image placeholder)
其他專利相關及未找到適當分類的
●美國專利標示：美國專利標示(Patent Marking)
●美國專利法中文版：美國專利法中文版
●AMENDMENT AND RESPONSE IN THE MECHANICAL ARTS：教你如何進行答辯，英文也不是很難，至少比mpep簡單許多，推薦！
●1999 專利侵權個案分析案例資料庫：一些美國案例中文摘要的連結。
(image placeholder)
羅炳榮先生的文章收集抱殘守缺 http://www.ipnavigator.com.tw/news/news_view.asp?NewsID=20050504111956
(image placeholder)
竟然讓我不小心找到一整本有關專利法的書，它是Polk Wagner教授的上課課本，可以參觀一下Polk Wagner教授為他專利法的學生所做的網頁，還有Polk Wagner教授的blog站，下載電子書的連結如下，最好的下載下式是使用firefox和scrapbook，而且完全免費，推薦！
(image placeholder)
(image placeholder)
●Reexamination
http://www.taie.com.tw/1392.htm
台一專利商標事務所撰寫之「 美國專利復審制度(Reexamination) 」
●RCE與CPA之比較
http://www.hitek.com.tw/news-9.htm
海天國際專利商標事務所撰寫之「續案申請Request for Continued Examination(RCE)及Continued Prosecution Application(CPA)之比較 」
●http://www.hitek.com.tw/news-1.htm
海天國際專利商標事務所撰寫之「 美國專利審查手冊(MPEP)中第 2000章關於揭露之義務(Duty of Disclosure) 」
小個體身份變動與專利有效性關係
●http://www.taie.com.tw/1354.htm
由台一專利商標事務所撰寫之「未及時陳報小個體身份變動與專利有效性關係 」

【排程】數值限定發明

【排程】數值限定發明

找機會要好好研究一下“數值限定發明”

上網看了一下，留下幾個參考資料，減少以後要搜尋的負擔，全是日文：一、二、三、四。

在日本有一本專利在討論“數值限定發明”的書，也有人開專門教“數值限定發明”之說明書撰寫及中間程序處理的演講，神奇吧，！

【103】非顯而易知性

【103】非顯而易知性

整理幾個非顯而易知性的相關分類：

• 先前技術的暗示


• 容易試驗


• 對成功的合理預期


• 後見之明


• 相反教示


• 較具有實用性


• 不可預期的效果


• 沒有揭示的優點


• 組合發明

PS：接下來，想好好的研究“非顯而易知性”，專利的工作了那麼久還是對它不是很了解。
PPS：以前的blog：一、二。
PPPS：整理自Elements of united states patent law by Donald S. Chisum，一本我想要翻的書。

【Claim】【摘譯】文字的本質、及辭書編纂者的法理

【Claim】【摘譯】文字的本質、及辭書編纂者的法理

為什麼專利法允許發明人自己當作辭書編纂者？若有興趣可以參考Autogiro Co. of America v. United States, 181 Ct. Cl. 55, 384 F.2d 391, 155 U.S.P.Q. 697 (Ct. Cl. 1967)中，Justice Frankfurther 的comment。

The very nature of words would make a clear and unambiguous claim rare.

文字的性質本身，讓作成一明確及豪無疑義的請求項，非常罕見。

An invention exists most importantly as a tangible structure or a series of  drawings. A verbal portrayal is usually an afterthought written to satisfy the requirements of patent law. This conversion of machine to words allows for unintended idea gaps, which cannot be satisfactorily filled. Often the invention is novel and words do not exist to describe it. The dictionary does not always keep abreast of the inventor. It cannot. Things are not made for the sake of words, but words for things. To overcome this lag, patent law allows the inventor to be his own lexicographer.

最重要的是，發明係以物理的結構或一系列圖的方式產生，語言的描寫通常是為滿足專利法的要件，而於事後將想法寫下，將機構轉換成文字可能會產生非意圖的思想間隙，而這思想間隙又無法令人滿意地被填滿。發明常常是新穎的，描述它的文字不存在，字典經常無法與發明人保持同步，也不可能，事物並非為文字產生，但文字為事物產生。為克服此落後差距，專利法允許發明人當作自己的辭書編纂者。

PS：很多規則都有它的法理，只是規則看久了就會讓人忘記去了解它的法理，一切把它當做理所當然，我常常這樣，看到一個規則就直接吸收卻很少去想“為什麼”，以Justice Frankfurther這段深具法理的文字，期許自己克服思考的慣性，大家加油。只是！了解這又能做什麼用？實務上用得到嗎？