申請專利範圍的解釋

【請求項】申請專利範圍的解釋

Johnson Worldwide v. Zebco175 F.3d 985 (Fed. Cir. 1999)Before MAYER, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges.

We begin, as with all claim interpretation analyses, with the language of the claims. . . . The general rule is, of course, that terms in the claim are to be given their ordinary and accustomed meaning. . . . General descriptive terms will ordinarily be given their full meaning; modifiers will not be added to broad terms standing alone. See, e.g., Virginia Panel Corp. v. MAC Panel Co., 133 F.3d 860, 865-66, 45 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1225, 1229 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (unmodified term "reciprocating" not limited to linear reciprocation); Bell Communications, 55 F.3d at 621-22, 34 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) at 1821 (unmodified term "associating" not limited to explicit association); Specialty Composites v. Cabot Corp., 845 F.2d 981, 987, 6 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1601, 1606 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (unmodified term "plasticizer" given full range of ordinary and accustomed meaning). In short, a court must presume that the terms in the claim mean what they say, and, unless otherwise compelled, give full effect to the ordinary and accustomed meaning of claim terms. . . .

解釋申請專利範圍的通用規則是：請求項中的用語必須是一般及慣常的意思。但是在下列兩種情況下，必須將它解釋成其他意思。

Our case law demonstrates two situations where a sufficient reason exists to require the entry of a definition of a claim term other than its ordinary and accustomed meaning. The first arises if the patentee has chosen to be his or her own lexicographer by clearly setting forth an explicit definition for a claim term. . . . . The second is where the term or terms chosen by the patentee so deprive the claim of clarity that there is no means by which the scope of the claim may be ascertained from the language used. . . . . In these two circumstances, a term or terms used in the claim invites--or indeed, requires-- reference to intrinsic, or in some cases, extrinsic, evidence, see Vitronics (reference to extrinsic evidence is proper when intrinsic evidence cannot resolve ambiguity in claim language), to determine the scope of the claim language.