【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？