【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。