【解釋】“大約”等於“正確”？

【解釋】“大約”等於“正確”？

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 04-1005 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 28, 2005)

For example the phrase “about 70 mg of bone resorption inhibiting bisphosphonate selected from the group consisting of alendronate, pharmaceutically acceptable salts thereof and mixtures thereof, on an alendronic acid weight basis” means that the amount of bisphosphonate compound selected is calculated based on 70 mg of alendronic acid.

精簡一點：the phrase “about 70 mg……” means that the amount of bisphosphonate compound selected is calculated based on 70 mg of alendronic acid.

試問將“大約70mg”定義為“70mg”時，大約是不是應該解釋成正確？這關係於“用語的通常意思”以及“申請人自己當作辭書編集者重新定義用語”兩者之間，應採取哪個解釋。

該案例CAFC的多數法官認為應採取“用語的通常意思”，但也有少數法官提不同意見書，該句的這兩種解釋似乎都可以，不管結果如何？對於我們撰寫說明書的人，應該儘量避免這種容易引起爭議的句子。就像上句多數法官和少數法官的用字一樣，例如“少數法官”意思是指具有相對意思的“占少數的法官”；還是指單純地就數量上表示個人感覺 的“有一些法官”？最後提供一個資訊：對於此類議題有個美國律師認為，CAFC法官趨向於採取“用語的通常意思”解譯。

【摘錄】摘錄幾句當作今天的作業
申請人能夠在說明書定義用語的意思，當作辭書編集者。
While in some cases there is a presumption that favors the ordinary meaning of a term, Tex. Digital Sys. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202 (Fed. Cir. 2002), the court must first examine the specification to determine whether the patentee acted as his own lexicographer of a term that already has an ordinary meaning to a person of skill in the art. See, e.g., Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Brookhill-Wilk, 334 F.3d at 1299.

但，當申請人自己當作辭書編集者，重新定義特定請求項之用語，使用偏離它們的通常意思時，他必須於書面揭示中清楚地說明其意圖。
When a patentee acts as his own lexicographer in redefining the meaning of particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, he must clearly express that intent in the written description. See, e.g., Bell Atl. Network Servs. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc., 262 F.3d 1258, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

參見：一、二、三、判例，以前關於about的文章。

新年快樂

新年快樂

這星期五下班後開始放假，下星期五上班後開始上班。

過了一年了，對自己有什麼期望？也許，是找個伴吧，不對自己抱期望的期望。

總之，新年快樂，恭喜發財，紅包拿來。

【摘錄】claim construction -- indefiniteness

【摘錄】claim construction -- indefiniteness

An analysis of claim indefiniteness under §112 P2 is "inextricably intertwined with
claim construction.

法條§112 P2的申請專利範圍的不明確分析與申請專利範圍的解譯，水乳交融不可分離。

In Exxon Research & Engineering, 265 F.3d at 1375, the court stated that "if the meaning of the claim is discernible, even though the task may be formidable and the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree, we have held the claim sufficiently clear to avoid invalidity on indefiniteness grounds."

如果申請專利範圍是可識別的，即使任務難以應付，且結論也許與能判斷事理之人的意見不合，我們判決該申請專利範圍足夠清楚明白，可避免依不明確理由的無效性。

想法：第二句一開始覺得邏輯怪怪的，原因在於「the conclusion may be one over which reasonable persons will disagree」，這整句的邏輯對嗎？

參見：justpatent

PS：今天比較認真一點翻個兩句吧。

【聊天】你的月薪多少？

【聊天】你的月薪多少？

600万円／30歳例)月給/38万円
800万円／35歳例)月給/50万円
1500万円／年俸同額、弁理士有資格者40歳例

【年収例】
700万円／月給42万円・平成17年度弁理士試験合格者（技術系・年齢30歳・特許実務未経験者）

參見：日本論壇

PS：日圓換臺票的大約換算方式是先乘3再減去一個0，我在日本時都是這樣算的，很多錢對不對，“現目”。

【實務】先前技術的調查

【實務】先前技術的調查

在一日本論壇看到的資訊，隨手整理沒有認真看過，記錄下來只是為了，也許有一天會用得到吧！

「特許検索ガイドブック」
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/s_sonota/pat_guidebook.htm
「検索の考え方と検索報告書の作成」
http://www.ncipi.go.jp/jinzai/kyozai/kensaku.html
情報検索能力試験
http://www.infosta.or.jp/shiken/shikentop2.html
情報提供が増えれば、特許庁も喜ぶであろう。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/seido/s_tokkyo/tt1210-037_sanko2.htm
先行技術文献情報開示要件の「当面の運用」の終了について
http://www.jpo.go.jp/tetuzuki/t_tokkyo/shinsa/toumen_unyou.htm

http://www.jpo.go.jp/torikumi/t_torikumi/shutugannin_yousei.htm
http://www.ncipi.go.jp/jinzai/kyozai/kensaku.html
http://www.ncipi.go.jp/jinzai/kyozai/pdf/k_total.pdf

PS：有趣的一句話：「飽きっぽい人には特許調査は不向きです。忍耐と根性で努力しましょう（沒耐性的人不適合做專利調查，用忍耐加意志力努力加油！）。」

【摘錄】102的prior art適用於103的prior art？

【摘錄】102的prior art適用於103的prior art？

References within the statutory terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102 qualify as prior art for an obviousness determination only when analogous to the claimed invention.  In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir. 1992).  Two separate tests define the scope of analogous prior art:  (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed and, (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.  In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979).

法定條文35 U.S.C. § 102範圍內的參考文獻，僅在該參考文獻類似於所請發明時，才具有用以決定顯而易知性之先前技術的資格。

參考：IN RE ALBERTO  LEE BIGIO，一個討論prior art的案例。

see also Deminski, 796 F.2d at 442 (determining that the cited references were within the same field of endeavor where they “have essentially the same function and structure”).
類似的領域：具有實質上相等的功能及結構

To the contrary, substantial evidence must support the PTO’s factual assessment of the field of endeavor.  Gartside, 203 F.3d at 1315.  In other words, the PTO must show adequate support for its findings on the scope of the field of endeavor in the application’s written description and claims, including the structure and function of the invention.

專利教學網站

專利教學網站

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

【摘錄】請求項較寬解釋和較窄解釋間的抉擇

【摘錄】請求項較寬解釋和較窄解釋間的抉擇

參見：google的備份及我的備份

Were we to allow [Athletic Alternatives Inc.] successfully to assert the broader of the two senses of ``between'` against Prince, we would undermine the fair notice function of the requirement that the patentee distinctly claim the subject matter disclosed in the patent from which he can exclude others temporarily. Where there is an equal choice between a broader and a narrower meaning of a claim, and there is an enabling disclosure that indicates that the applicant is at least entitled to a claim having the narrower meaning, we consider the notice function of the claim to be best served by adopting the narrower meaning.

請求項的意思在較寬解釋和較窄解釋間具有相等的選擇機會，且可實施要件的開示亦顯示申請人至少能夠獲准具較窄意思的請求項時，我們認為採用較窄意思最能夠發揮申請專利範圍的公示機能。

PS：給自己的期望，每日挑選一句判例的文字翻譯，但或許這樣太嚴苛了，不過，至少每星期一句，好吧也許是一個月。

內部証據

（1月24日更新）
內部証據

記載於說明書中第一頁的參考文獻和IDS中的資料，不屬於“外部証據”；亦即，屬於“內部証據”，會直接地影響申請專利範圍的解譯。

參見：一、二
The district court properly considered other intrinsic evidence to aid its construction. For instance, the district court considered U.S. Patent No. 5,549,310 (issued August 27, 1996) (the Meibock patent). The Meibock patent is prior art that was listed as a reference on the face of the ’466 patent and in an Information Disclosure Statement. This prior art reference to Meibock is not extrinsic evidence. This court has established that “prior art cited in a patent or cited in the prosecution history of the patent constitutes intrinsic evidence.” Kumar v. Ovonic Battery Co., 351 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Res., Inc., 279 F.3d 1357, 1371-72 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Vitronics, 90 F.3d at 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Markman, 52 F.3d at 979-80. For example, in Arthur A. Collins, Inc. v. Northern Telecom Ltd., 216 F.3d 1042 (Fed. Cir. 2000), this court rejected the district court's claim construction, which “declined to consider the teachings of [prior art referenced in the patent] to ascertain the meaning” of the claim term “time-space-time (TST) switch.” Id. at 1044. Instead, this court interpreted the term based on its usage in the prior art that was cited in the patent, explaining that “when prior art that sheds light on the meaning of a term is cited by the patentee, it can have particular value as a guide to the proper construction of the term, because it may indicate not only the meaning of the term to persons skilled in the art, but also that the patentee intended to adopt that meaning.” Id. at 1045.

請比較臺灣的“專利侵害鑑定要點”：
用於解釋申請專利範圍之外部證據，係指內部證據以外之其他證據。經常被引用者包括發明人或創作人之其他論文著作、發明人或創作人之其他專利、相關前案（如追加案之母案、主張優先權之前案等）……。

【辭典】Double Patenting 重覆專利

Double Patenting

“double patenting ”是為避免“一個”專利權人，針對一份相同的發明，得到兩份專利。「Non-statutory, or “obviousness-type,” double patenting」是為禁止專利權人有效地延長專利的保護期限。

參見此判例所討論的Double Patenting
The double patenting doctrine generally prevents a patentee from receiving two patents for the same invention. Thus, this doctrine polices the proper application of the patent term for each invention. The proscription against double patenting takes two forms: statutory and non-statutory. Statutory, or “same invention,” double patenting is based on the language in § 101 of the Patent Act mandating “a patent” for any new and useful invention. 35 U.S.C. § 101 (2000); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 1052 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (“If the claimed inventions are identical in scope, the proper rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because an inventor is entitled to a single patent for an invention.”) (citations omitted). Non-statutory, or “obviousness-type,” double patenting is a judicially created doctrine adopted to prevent claims in separate applications or patents that do not recite the “same” invention, but nonetheless claim inventions so alike that granting both exclusive rights would effectively extend the life of patent protection. Gerber Garment Tech., Inc. v. Lectra Sys., Inc., 916 F.2d 683, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 534 (CCPA 1969)). This case involves double patenting in this latter category.

參見智財局論壇的討論：原始及我的備份。

日本網站的解譯：原始及我的備份
「重複特許には、出願人（発明者）が異なる場合と出願人（発明者）が同一の場合とで対応が異なる。出願人が異なる場合は、§102(e)(g)で拒絶になり、その後はInterferenceの問題となる。。また、出願人が同一の場合は、重複特許で拒絶になり、重複する該当クレームの存続期間を一部放棄（terminal disclaimer）することで対応できることがある。」
此站將重覆專利分成“申請人相同”及“申請人不相同”其實算是錯誤的觀念，重覆專利的前提是申請人一定要相同。不過，重覆專利的重點是在於“如何判斷什麼是相同的發明”。故適合與102（e）（g）中“相同發明”的做比較。

誰才是“發明人”？

誰才是“發明人”？

概念的完成時點是：當發明人腦中已清楚地定義該發明思想，且僅需該行業者不用過度的研究實驗即可具以實施。共同發明人必須一起對發明的概念有所貢獻，即使僅貢獻於一個請求項，亦為共同發明人。

參考：justpatent

• 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 skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation." Burroughs Wellcome, 40 F.3d at 1228.

“大約”明不明確？

“大約”明不明確？

BJ Services Co. v. Halliburton Energy Services

雖然說明書中有揭示某性質的值，如判例中的C，但沒有揭示其測定方法，通常會被認為沒有enablement。但若該性質的測定方法是公知的，那麼亦符合enablement。此判例的被告即是以前者當作訴訟理由。

Halliburton argues that because the patent does not disclose the method for determining the C* value, it is invalid for lack of enablement. And, blurring the line between enablement and indefiniteness, it further argues that because "about 0.06" is indefinite, the patent would not enable one of skill in the art to make and use the invention.

Enablement和Indefiniteness為法律問題，但其inquiry為事實本質時，可以訴諸於陪審團。

"Enablement is a legal determination of whether a patent enables one skilled in the art to make and use the claimed invention." (citations omitted) Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Even if some experimentation is required, so long as it is not unduly extensive, a specification can still be enabling. Atlas Powder Co. v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 750 F.2d 1569, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Although enablement is a question of law, because of the factual nature of the inquiry in this case, it is amenable to resolution by the jury. Spectra-Physics, Inc. v. Coherent, Inc., 827 F.2d 1524, 1533 (Fed. Cir. 1987). And because a jury decided the issue here based on factual determinations, we look to whether a reasonable jury could have made the underlying factual findings necessary to provide substantial evidence in support of its conclusion. Allen Organ Co. v. Kimball Int'l, Inc., 839 F.2d 1556, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Indefiniteness is also a legal determination arising out of the court's performance of its duty construing the claims, Personalized Media Communications, 161 F.3d at 705, and is reviewed de novo. Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St. Jude. Med., Inc., 296 F.3d 1106, 1113 (Fed. Cir. 2002). "The definiteness inquiry focuses on whether those skilled in the art would understand the scope of the claim when the claim is read in light of the rest of the specification." Union Pac. Res. Co. v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., 236 F.3d 684, 692 (Fed. Cir. 2001) citing Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Like enablement, definiteness, too, is amenable to resolution by the jury where the issues are factual in nature. Because the issues here are essentially factual, we review the jury's verdict to determine if the ultimate conclusion reached is supported by substantial evidence.

“約”解釋成用來包含實驗誤差的範圍。
原告主張：
"Definiteness problems often arise when words of degree are used in a claim. That some claim language may not be precise, however, does not automatically render a claim invalid." Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Indus. Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 826 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The question becomes whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Id. BJ Services argues that the term "about" is intended to encompass the range of experimental error that occurs in any measurement and that one of skill in the art would readily understand the range that "about 0.06" was intended to include. To that end, it presented the experimental results obtained by its expert, all of which were slightly above or below 0.06 for an average of 0.0596.
陪審團的裁決：
"What a prior art reference discloses in an anticipation analysis is a factual determination that we review for substantial evidence when decided by a jury." Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the district court, Halliburton did not request that the court construe "about 0.06," it agreed that the jury should be instructed to give "about 0.06" its plain and ordinary meaning. Given that the term "about" was used to encompass experimental error and that the jury had before it the typical experimental range, substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that Moorhouse does not anticipate the '855 patent. "What a prior art reference discloses in an anticipation analysis is a factual determination that we review for substantial evidence when decided by a jury." Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am. Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the district court, Halliburton did not request that the court construe "about 0.06," it agreed that the jury should be instructed to give "about 0.06" its plain and ordinary meaning. Given that the term "about" was used to encompass experimental error and that the jury had before it the typical experimental range, substantial evidence supports the jury's finding that Moorhouse does not anticipate the '855 patent.