【請求項】多項制

【請求項】多項制

附屬項的範圍通常都被獨立項的範圍所包含，因此，專利說明書的請求項為何採用多項制？雖然採用“多項制”在目前的眼光下，幾乎是理所當然的，至於為什麼，這個問題小弟也幾乎懶得去想了。也對！因為想了理由又如何？不論有沒有答案，大家的作法都是一樣的，不過，今天看到一篇文章（事實上它是一本免費的電子書），覺得也許可以試著聽聽法官們怎麼解譯（他是一個“當時還是地方法官的“法官的opinion），順便整理一下我覺得有趣的幾段文字。
專利說明書內包含技術和法律兩個層面，所以要撰寫專利說明書是很困難的，而這種難處早在1892年就被最高法院的法官所承認的：
This land is even more fantastical when populated with patents, for a patent attempts to combine the particular challenges of a specialized field of technology with the separate challenges of a particularized field of law.
The Supreme Court recognized the difficulty of patent drafting over a century ago when it observed: The specification and claims of a patent, particularly if the invention be at all complicated, constitute one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with accuracy. . . .
Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 171 (1892).
另外，撰寫專利說明書內的“權利範圍”，它的難處可分成兩面來看：
However, claim breadth cuts both ways: a patent applicant must keep its claims sufficiently narrow to avoid sweeping in the prior art, but sufficiently broad to encompass the accused devices or processes. Often, the applicant must do this before it is aware of all the relevant prior art and before the accused device even exists.
就是因為這個原因，專利的權利範圍，適合採用“多項制”。
In his usual style, then-District Judge Hand discussed the practice of differentiating an invention from the prior artby drafting claims of varying breadth:
There is nothing improper, so far as I can see, in first putting your claims as broadly as in good faith you can, and then, ex abundanti cautela, following them successively with narrower claims designed to protect you against possible anticipations of which you are not yet aware. Indeed, the very case upon which the defendant relies (Matheson v. Campbell, 78 Fed. 910, 917, 24 C.C.A. 384) shows the necessity of claims as broad as one can honestly support.