【請求項】數值限定及均等論

【20061103】更新
【請求項】數值限定及均等論

先前曾寫過一篇blog，內容提及日本法院拒絕數值限定發明適用均等論，因為數值限定發明的本質部分在於數值本身. 當然如果用數值來限定的發明，亦即其本身已具有新穎性，數值限定並非其本質部分，那麼這種用數值來做限定的發明則可適用均等論.

這介紹一個美專判決，摘錄：

「We therefore do not find a basis for precluding Abbott from relying on the doctrine of equivalents simply because the claim recites numeric ranges for the components of the claimed surfactant.」

不僅因“用數值來限定發明”，即判定不得適用均等論. 數值限定發明能不能適用均等論要依個案為主。

【20061103】更新
美國判斷能不能適用均等論的方式是先判斷適不適用禁反言、及先前技術阻卻；這不同於日本的五個要件（其中之一就是本質要件，即發明的本質部分不得適用均等論）。不過，詳細看看還是可以找到一些小小相同的地方，即

On the contrary, the addition of free fatty acids distinguished the surfactant claimed by the ’839 patent from the surfactant described by the ’301 patent. The addition of free fatty acids is no less significant with respect to the hypothetical claim and, on this basis, an examiner could have determined that the hypothetical claim was nonobvious.

加入一個元件，即可與舊技術做區別，所以free fatty acids 才是本質的部分，因此此案可以不適用本質要件。


判決 01-1374
ABBOTT LABORATORIES and
MITSUBISHI-TOKYO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
(formerly known as Tokyo Tanabe Co., Ltd.),
v.
DEY, L.P. and DEY, INC.,

The fact that a claim recites numeric ranges does not, by itself, preclude Abbott from relying on the doctrine of equivalents. For example, in Jeneric/Pentron, Inc. v. Dillon Co., 205 F.3d 1377, 54 USPQ2d 1086 (Fed. Cir. 2000), the claim at issue was for a porcelain composition that recited numeric percentage ranges for each component of the composition. While this court agreed with the Jeneric/Pentron district court’s claim construction that the claim language “indicates that the invention’s chemical components should be limited to the precise ranges set forth therein,” we also stated that “the district court will have the opportunity to adjudicate fully the merits of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.” Id. at 1381, 1384, 54 USPQ2d at 1089, 1091. Thus, while the numeric ranges limited the literal scope of the claims, we did not preclude Jeneric/Pentron from applying the doctrine of equivalents simply because the claim recited numeric ranges for the components of the claimed composition. Likewise, in Forest Laboratories, we applied the doctrine of equivalents to the water element of claim 1 of the ’839 patent, which requires 2.1%-5.2% water. See Forest Labs., 239 F.3d at 1313, 57 USPQ2d at 1800. We therefore do not find a basis for precluding Abbott from relying on the doctrine of equivalents simply because the claim recites numeric ranges for the components of the claimed surfactant.

禁反言
The first step in a prosecution history estoppel analysis is to determine which claim limitations are alleged to be met by equivalents. Then, the court must determine whether the limitations at issue were amended during prosecution of the patent. If they were not, amendment-based estoppel will not bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents. However, even if the claim limitation has not been amended, an argument-based estoppel may nevertheless arise based on statements made by the applicant during prosecution.

申請過程禁反言分成兩種： amendment-based estoppel 及argument-based estoppel 。

先前技術
A pioneer patent by definition will have little applicable prior art to limit it, whereas an improvement patent’s scope is confined by the existing knowledge on which the improvement is based. See, e.g., Augustine Med., Inc. v. Gaymar Indus., Inc., 181 F.3d 1291, 1301, 50 USPQ2d 1900, 1907 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Without extensive prior art to confine and cabin their claims, pioneers acquire broader claims than non-pioneers who must craft narrow claims to evade the strictures of a crowded art field.”). However, the fact that a patent is an improvement patent does not automatically preclude application of the doctrine of equivalents. “That a claim describing a limited improvement in a crowded field will have a limited range of permissible equivalents does not negate the availability of the doctrine [of equivalents] vel non.” Warner-Jenkinson, 520 U.S. at 27 n.4.

先驅專利可以具有較大的均等範圍，而僅是改良的部分具有較小的改良空間。

PS：對於禁反言的適用及先前技術阻卻的適用方式，不太清楚的我，這一篇給了我很多的教導，我覺得很值得推薦給對這兩個適用方式不清楚的人看。