【摘譯】【Claim】CAFC判例中適用逆均等論次數

【摘譯】【Claim】CAFC判例中適用逆均等論次數

TATE ACCESS FLOORS, INC v. INTERFACE ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES

Not once has this court affirmed a decision finding noninfringement based on the reverse doctrine of equivalents.  And with good reason: when Congress enacted 35 U.S.C. § 112, after the decision in Graver Tank, it imposed requirements for the written description, enablement, definiteness, and means-plus-function claims that are co-extensive with the broadest possible reach of the reverse doctrine of equivalents. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1194 & n.5, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1849-50 & n.5 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (rejecting Commissioner's argument that by enacting § 112 Congress intended only to codify the reverse doctrine of equivalents and thereby to render the requirements applicable only in the litigation context, and therefore holding that the requirements of § 112, ¶ 6 apply to all interpretations of means-plus-function claim language, but noting that one result of enacting § 112 may have been to codify the reverse doctrine of equivalents); cf. Hilton Davis Chem. Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co., 62 F.3d 1512, 1569, 35 USPQ2d 1641, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (Nies, J., dissenting) (noting that the reverse doctrine of equivalents was originally used by the courts to reduce the scope of broad "means" claims to "cover only what the inventor discloses and equivalents thereof"), rev'd and remanded, 520 U.S. 17, 41 USPQ2d 1865 (1997).

本庭未曾確定基於逆均等論之非侵害的判決。

PS：逆均等論原是過去用於限縮功能手段用語之請求項的權利範圍，現在僅是法理上存在的一個理論，實際運用上是很少的，通常它的部分，都會被正確的「申請專利範圍解譯（Claim construction）」給取代。

今在一本書看到CAFC的一個判例“SRI international v. Matsushita Electric”，此判例認為，沒有足夠的差異，主張依逆均等論確定非侵害，此判例中亦有反對立場的少數意見，可以參考。