【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？