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）……。