組合發明的進步性

In that case (Sakraida 1976), the Court held that a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions is precluded from patentability under 103(a).

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/10/ksr_v_teleflex_.html

因此，各舊元件的組合，必須是舊元件都有了新的功能，才能具有進步性。

進步性

Obviousness

CAFC於此案例中澄清顯而易知性拒絕理由的基本規則。

The CAFC (04-1616) in this case further clarified the ground rules for obviousness rejection.

Board

Bord 認為發明之使用目的不足以支持可專利性，其指出「所請求裝置其被意圖之使用的方式，不足以區別出“所請求裝置”與”滿足所請求裝置之限制條件的先前技術”間的差異」

First, the Board rejected the argument that the invention’s intended use supports patentability, noting that “the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus [from] a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations.” Id. at 5-6. Second, the Board rejected the argument that because “the purposes of the [prior art] references . . . are different from the [invention’s] purpose,” the invention is non-obvious, explaining that “[t]he law . . . does not require that references be combined for reasons contemplated by an inventor” and that “prior art need not suggest the same problem set forth by appellant.”

CAFC

要考慮顯而易知性分析的動機時，所審查之欲解決的問題並不特定於本發明所欲解決的問題，而是在創作本發明前發明人所遇到的一般性問題。

此句話的意思是，作為表面初步證據的引證案，其說明書中所提及之所欲解決的問題，即使不相同於本發明，亦為適格的表面初步證據。

In considering motivation in the obviousness analysis, the problem examined is not the specific problem solved by the invention but the general problem that confronted the inventor before the invention was made. See, e.g., Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); Ecolochem, Inc. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 227 F.3d 1361, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“Although the suggestion to combine references may flow from the nature of the problem, ‘[d]efining the problem in terms of its solution reveals improper hindsight in the selection of the prior art relevant to obviousness.’” (internal citation omitted) (quoting Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GmbH, 139 F.3d 877, 881 (Fed. Cir. 1998))); In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[T]he law does not require that the references be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor.”); Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Beckman Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (characterizing the relevant inquiry as “[would] an artisan of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, confronted by the same problems as the inventor and with no knowledge of the claimed invention,[] have selected the various elements from the prior art and combined them in the manner claimed”); see also Graham, 383 U.S. at 35 (characterizing the problem as involving mechanical closures rather than in terms more specific to the patent in the context of determining the pertinent prior art). Therefore, the “motivation-suggestion-teaching” test asks not merely what the references disclose, but whether a person of ordinary skill in the art, possessed with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the combination recited in the claims. See Cross Med. Prods., 424 F.3d at 1321-24. From this it may be determined whether the overall disclosures, teachings, and suggestions of the prior art, and the level of skill in the art—i.e., the understandings and knowledge of persons having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention—support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Princeton Biochemicals, 411 F.3d at 1338 (pointing to evidence supplying detailed analysis of the prior art and the reasons one of ordinary skill would have possessed the knowledge and motivation to combine).

==================

intended use,  is intended to be employed  使用目的

使用功能手段用語之對價的要求

http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2007/09/without_means_1.html

Mitchell had pointed to a reference from the specification for supporting documentation, but both courts found the prior art reference "both too broad and not linked to the "means for causing" limitation."

• The mere mention of a complicated integrated circuit, comprised of hundreds if not thousands of circuits, is much too broad to sufficiently indicate the precise "means for causing" structure to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostic Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("It is important to determine whether one of skill in the art would understand the specification itself to disclose the structure, not simply whether that person would be capable of implementing that structure.").

Mitchell attempted to "to identify structure in a variety of generalized passages in the specification," but nothing specific to hang the means hat on.

• "[I]n order for a claim to meet the particularity requirement of ¶ 2, the corresponding structure(s) of a means-plus-function limitation must be disclosed in the written description in such a manner that one skilled in the art will know and understand what structure corresponds to the means limitation."  Thus, the statute requires more than just the possibility that an artisan of ordinary skill may be able to figure out the corresponding structure. The quid pro quo for using a means-plus-function limitation requires specificity in reciting structure and linking that structure to the limitation. Id. Mitchell does not carry out its part of the quid pro quo bargain.

Mitchell 從說明書中指出一參考文獻用以作為支持文件，但兩法庭發覺習知前案皆太廣且沒有連結該“導致手段”的限制條件。

• 僅提及一複雜的積體電路，其沒有包含數千也包含數百種電路，則範圍為太廣，不足以向該行業者精確地指出“導致手段”的結構。. 見 Med. Instrumentation & Diagnostic Corp. v. Elekta AB, 344 F.3d 1205, 1212 (Fed. Cir. 2003) （判斷該行業者是否能了解說明書本身所揭露的結構；而非單僅是判斷該行業者是否能夠實施該結構，這是非常重要的。）

Mitchell 亦試圖“指出說明書中多種的一般化通道的結構”，但卻不能明確地為該些結構扣上“手段”的帽子。

• 為使請求項符合第2段的特別要件，功能手段用語之限制條件的對應結構，必須以該行業者能夠知道並了解什麼結構對應該手段限制條件的方式，揭露於書面的說明中。Atmel Corp. v. Info. Storage Devices, Inc., 198 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1999)。因此，法定要件，要求不單僅是該行業者能夠找出對應結構。使用功能手段用語的對價係要求：指出結構的明確性；以及將該結構連結至限制條件的明確性。Mitchell 沒有完成他那部分所應付出之對價的交換條件。

---------------------------------------------

法律用語的 find 意思為根據事實的認為，實在不知道如何翻譯正確，暫定“發覺”。

means plus function：單純的揭露結構是不夠的，要“Link”。

造成請求項脆弱的原因

http://backno.mini.mag2.com/r/servlet/MBack?id=M0070682

第３２号 ２００７年１０月２９日発行
●堅牢な請求項を作成することが特許戦略の基礎です
いくら特許戦略を練っても、使用可能な特許権を保持していなければ、無意味なのは当然のことです。表面的にいくら広い権利範囲をもった特許権を保持しても、請求項が脆弱では権利行使に使用できません。請求項が脆弱になる原因には、次のようなものがあります。

１． 請求項が未定義の用語を含んでいる。
２． 請求項が、あいまいな概念の用語を含んでいる。
３． 請求項が、実施の態様と対応付けにくい用語を含んでいる。
４． 請求項が、複数の意味に解釈できる構成要件を含んでいる。
５． 請求項を構成する構成要件の間の関係が明確には表現されていない。
６． 請求項に、他の構成要件と関係を有しない「浮いた構成要件」が存在する。

脆弱になる原因を含まない請求項は堅牢であり、権利行使における無用な議論を避けることができますし、特許権者も自分の特許権の権利範囲が明確にわかります。特許権侵害訴訟では、請求項の権利範囲について、特に、上記の１から６のどれかの類型に該当する事柄について争っている場合がほとんどです。訴訟にいたらずに権利行使に成功すれば、権利行使の費用対効果比が向上します。その意味からも、堅牢な請求項を作成することは特許戦略の基礎であると思います。

作成堅固的請求項是專利戰略的基礎。若無法保持能夠行使權利的專利權，再怎麼精心策劃專利戰略，都會變得無義意，這是理所當然的。無論表面上保持有多廣之權利範圍的專利權，請求項很脆弱的話亦無法使行權利。造成請求項脆弱的原因，有如下幾點：

1、請求項包含未定義的用語。
2、請求項包含曖昧概念的用語。
3、請求項包含難以對應實施態樣的用語。
4、請求項包含能夠解釋成多個意思的構成要件。
5、構成請求項的構成要件間的關係，沒有明確表現出來。
6、請求項中存在與其他構成要件沒有關係的「漂浮元件」。

沒有包含脆弱原因的請求項，就會很堅固，可以避免無法使用權利的非議，且專利權人亦能更明確的了解自己之專利權的權利範圍。於專利侵權訴訟中，針對請求項之權利範圍的爭點，特別地幾乎所有情況，都是符合上述1至6任一點之類型的爭點。尚未進行訴訟而能成功行使權利的話，會提高權利行使之費用及效果的比率。從這個觀點來看，作成堅固的請求項，係為特許戰略的基礎。

------------------------------------------------------------

上述文章取自「特許戦略マガジン」。今日上網逛大街不小心看到地，覺得很有用，所以決定將它譯出來，詳細讀讀！

Thinning the Patent Thicket 砍薄專利之林

■■October 20, 2007
■Thinning the Patent Thicket 砍薄專利之林
Thanks to KSR, the bar of §103(a) is set obscenely high for patent prosecution. Examiner rejections on obviousness, regularly combining three and four references to cover all the claim limitations, reek of hindsight, and are pasted with the thinnest of glue: e.g. "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine four patentably distinct references of unrelated subject matter because it would have been advantageous, as the applicant claimed."

託KSR之福，為103(a)之不可專利事由，設下極不公平的高水平。審查委員經常性地結合三或四件參考文獻，以包含請求項所有的限制條件，再不時令人嗅出後見之明之臭味地，針對顯而易知性，發出被塗上薄薄黏膠的拒絕理由：例如，如申請人所主張，由於具有利功效，故將四件發明主題互不相關且具可專利性顯著差異的參考文獻加以結合，這對於該領域具有通常知識者而言是顯而易知的。

------------------------------------------------------------

跟著「英語で読もう！～米国特許ブログ」和「Patent Hawk」一起學習英語、日語及美國專利。

obscenely 這個字，如果你查dr. eye的話會查到「淫穢地,下流地」，直翻的話，就會變得很生硬。請見 webster 的解釋「so excessive as to be offensive」，此處採用 longman 的解釋「extremely unfair, immoral, or unpleasant, especially in a way that makes you angry」。

Domino 骨牌

■■October 21, 2007
■Domino 骨牌

A flaw of temporal displacement, but very human: in hindsight, most everything appears obvious. Prior to the Supreme Court KSR ruling, patentable inventions correlated to real-world invention:
incremental, and combinatorial. As Thomas Jefferson, the first patent board director, observed, new inventions spring from previously unthought combinations. Until KSR, concern about hindsight reasoning rendered courts circumspect for a metric that grappled with this subtle and pernicious tendency. No more.

實際置換之判斷的缺點，但卻非常具人性，為依據後見之明每件事皆呈顯而易知。在最高法院的KSR規則之前，關連於真實世界之具可專利性的發明，皆為逐漸追加的且為組合的。如第一位專利局長Thomas Jefferson所述，新的發明皆源自先前未被想到的組合。直到KSR前，一直與這微妙且有害之傾向奮鬥的法院，因顧忌到存在後見之明之論證的疑慮，才使它為求公正而小心僅慎。現已盪然無存。

------------------------------------------------------------

跟著「英語で読もう！～米国特許ブログ」和「Patent Hawk」一起學習英語、日語及美國專利。

domino應該是西班牙文耶，曾學過一個月的西文，後來太難就沒興緻學了，我啊學什麼東西都是半調子，唉！

temporal ，為了這個字查了好多的詞典，webster、encarta，決定依longman的解譯「related to practical instead of religious affairs 」翻譯。

提出幾點小山智子弁理士翻譯來討論：

「A flaw of temporal displacement, but very human」：「置換可能かどうかは、非常に人間的な判断（是否置換可能，是非常人性的判斷）」。翻譯，有時照著原文硬著頭皮翻，就會翻的怪怪的，閱讀不易，我覺得她翻的很好，但我卻想從別的方式翻譯，雖然沒有她翻的好(^_^)。

「Until KSR, concern about hindsight reasoning rendered courts circumspect for a metric that grappled with this subtle and pernicious tendency」 ：「…巧妙かつ悪質な裁判所（巧妙且惡質的法院）」。此句小山先生應該是譯錯了。此句真不好讀，一開始that我以為修飾hindsight reasoning後來看到動詞grapple with才知，原來是修飾法院。

Invention Undermined 逐漸損壞的發明

■■October 23, 2007

■Invention Undermined 逐漸損壞的發明

Bryan Zerhusen of McCarter & English opines that KSR & the new USPTO obviousness examination Guidelines ring a death knell for many constitutionally patentable inventions: It is now apparent that in the view of the USPTO, KSR went much further than previously thought in eroding the certainty established by decades of Federal Circuit precedent. Taken together, KSR and the Guidelines result in an unfair system where the spirit of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 of the Constitution has been undermined. Furthermore, in some fields of art it seems as though only pioneering inventions are likely to be patentable.

Bryan Zerhusen of McCarter & English 對KSR判決及USPTO新的非顯而易知性的審查基準發表意見，認為它們為許多本質上具可專利性的發明敲起喪鐘。非常明顯地，觀察USPTO可知，KSR嚴重脫離習知見解，CAFC數十年所建立之判例的確定性，正被侵蝕中。KSR和此基準一起造成不公正的、且憲法第一條第八段第八節之精神已被逐漸損壞的系統。甚者，在一些技術領域中，似乎僅有先驅型發明才能取得專利。

------------------------------------------------------------

跟著「英語で読もう！～米国特許ブログ」和「Patent Hawk」一起學習英語、日語及美國專利。

------------------------------------------------------------

battle stations 戰鬥狀態

http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2007/10/battle_stations.html

Battle Stations

Reports flow in of siege at the USPTO fortress over examination limits. Casualties have already occurred: the twin angels of human relationships, Equity & Comity, appear seriously wounded. The large caliber catapult known as IBM has rolled into position, lobbing projectiles at the fortress. Now we hear that a defector is whispering dissent, that the cause may not be just, aghast at the thought of innocent lives, infant inventions strangled as they lie in their cradles.

針對審查限制，有關包圍攻擊USPTO要塞的報告已湧出。傷亡已經造成：具人類血緣關係的雙子天使，Equity & Comity，嚴重受傷。IBM，人稱大口徑石弩，已被滾動到要塞前預備發射炮彈的位置。現在，我們可以聽到叛離者在背後發出異議的私語，「理由不正當！想到無辜的、嬰兒期般的發明，躺在搖籃裡窒息而死，就十分驚訝」。

---------------------------------------

最近上網，看到了一個很好的日語學書英語及美國專利的網站，「英語で読もう！～米国特許ブログ」，決定跟著它，以每天翻譯一段Patent Hawk部落格中專利英文的方式，一起學習英語及美國專利，希望能每天持續。

CRF 1.78f1 相關案件提報的小程式

最近為公司撰寫了一個 CRF 1.78f1 相關案件提報的小程式，檔案為excel檔，分享給各位試試。

CRF 1.78f1.v1
http://ides13.googlepages.com/CRF1.78f.v1released.rar

這個小程式功能不強，僅能提供參考使用，不能取代人工仔細的檢查相關案件，請留意。

(^_^)

兩個專利說明書使用得到的巨集

http://www.nifty.com/download/win/business/patent/index.htm
兩個巨集，對各位寫美專時，一定會有很大的幫助。

第一個巨集，在每一段落前，新增希望標記段落的「預設標記【0000】」。 代碼:

Sub P_ini()
'
' 巨集錄製於 2006/1/4，錄製者 Friz.zzz
'
Selection.TypeText Text:="【0000】"
End Sub

第二個巨集，對每個「預設標記【0000】」，依順進行修改成正確的段落標記。 代碼:

Sub P_number()
'
'原作者／連絡方式
'岡田 稔 ／E-mail: okada@office.email.ne.jp
'
'中文化作者／連絡方式 
'keeping a diary patently/E-mail: Friz.zzz@gmail.com
'
Dim AddStr
Dim Num
Dim Flg_Conv
Dim Msg_Title
Msg_Title = "通知"
Num = 1
Flg_Conv = 0
Set myRange = ActiveDocument.Range()
With myRange.Find
.ClearFormatting
.Text = "【^#^#^#^#】"
.Replacement.Text = ""
.Forward = True
.Wrap = wdFindStop
.Format = False
.MatchCase = False
.MatchWholeWord = True
.MatchByte = False
.MatchAllWordForms = False
.MatchSoundsLike = False
.MatchWildcards = False
.MatchFuzzy = False
Do While .Execute = True
With .Parent
Flg_Conv = 1
.Delete
'
'日文說明書使用全形的「 vbWide 」；英說使用半形的「 vbWide 」
'，可自由選擇。
'
' AddStr = "【" + StrConv(Format(Num, "0000"), vbWide) + "】"
AddStr = "【" + StrConv(Format(Num, "0000"), vbNarrow) + "】"
.Font.Reset
.InsertAfter (AddStr)
.Move
End With
Num = Num + 1
Loop
End With
If Flg_Conv = 1 Then
MsgBox StrConv(Num - 1, vbNarrow) + " 個段落被置換", , Msg_Title
Else
MsgBox "沒有發現預設段落標記", , Msg_Title
End If

End Sub

安裝及使用方法：
1、alt鍵+F11鍵
2、點選左側欄的專案normal下的模組下的「NewMacros」
3、貼上上面的程式碼
4、儲存後，按alt+F8，之後選「 P_ini」巨集或「 P_number」巨集。

其他：
雖然段落預設標記是「【0000】」，但是卻不限定於此，只要是任意4個數字皆可，所以若有已完成的檔案，想要刪除一整段時，可以考慮使用第二個程式，用第二個程式來修正刪除一整段落後所造成的順序錯誤。

軟體發明的“structure ”

Allvoice Computing v. Nuance Comm. (Fed. Cir. 2007)


軟體發明常使用means plus function來撰寫每個step，可是功能手段用語需於說明書中揭露對應的結構，只是軟體發明的結構是什麼？滿有趣的，不是電腦，處理器等，而是流程圖。

Allvoice appealed after the Texas court found its means-plus-function claim elements indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112.

PHOSITA Creativity: A means plus function element is considered indefinite if a PHOSITA “would be unable to recognize the structure in the specification and associate it with the corresponding function in the claim.”

On appeal, the CAFC took a cue from KSR v. Teleflex — finding that a PHOSITA is creative and “not an automation.” For software cases, this means that the specification “need only disclose adequate defining structure to render the bounds of the claim understandable to one of ordinary skill in the art. Here, the CAFC found that the algorithm flowchart (see figure) was sufficient structure.

使用功能手段用語於說明書中應該對應的結構揭露，而於軟體發明中，計算流程圖作為軟體發明的結構，是足夠的結構揭露。


 【更新】 【2016/09/21】

https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2181.html

2181    Identifying and Interpreting a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, Sixth Paragraph Limitation [R-07.2015]

對於該演算法的描述必須足夠，流程圖即是結構。

If the specification explicitly discloses an algorithm, the sufficiency of the disclosure of the algorithm must be determined in light of the level of ordinary skill in the art. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337, 86 USPQ2d at 1241; AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc., 504 F.3d 1236, 1245, 84 USPQ2d 1886, 1893 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Intel Corp., 319 F.3d at 1366-67, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art can be used to make clear how to implement a disclosed algorithm). The examiner should determine whether one skilled in the art would know how to program the computer to perform the necessary steps described in the specification (i.e., the invention is enabled), and that the inventor was in possession of the invention (i.e., the invention meets the written description requirement). Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to a special purpose computer so that a person of ordinary skill in the art can implement the disclosed algorithm to achieve the claimed function. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1242.

Applicant may express the algorithm in any understandable terms including as a mathematical formula, in prose, in a flow chart, or “in any other manner that provides sufficient structure.” Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340, 86 USPQ2d at 1623; see also Intel Corp. v. VIA Techs., Inc., 319 F.3d 1357, 1366, 65 USPQ2d 1934, 1941 (Fed. Cir. 2003); In re Dossel, 115 F.3d 942, 946-47, 42 USPQ2d 1881, 1885 (Fed. Cir.1997); Typhoon Touch Inc. v. Dell Inc., 659 F.3d 1376, 1385, 100 USPQ2d 1690, 1697 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d at 1306, 99 USPQ2d at 1945.

連接詞"comprised of"

http://www.patenthawk.com/blog/2007/09/comprised_of_counterfeit.html
CIAS v. Alliance Gaming and Bally Gaming (CAFC 2006-1342)

These cases reflect the general understanding and usage of "comprised of" in patent convention as having the same meaning as "comprising." For patent claims the distinction between "comprising" and "consisting" is established, along with the meaning of "comprised of" as related to "comprising," not "consisting of." Correctly construed, "comprised of" does not of itself exclude the possible presence of additional elements or steps.

“comprised of ”為開放式的用語，不過，不太明白為什麼還是會有人使用這樣的字眼。會引起爭議的話，不用就好了不是嗎？

請求項用語的修正

請求項用語中，單複數的問題必需小心，單複數的使用最好同一。

Superior’s patent claimed a safer, more efficient in-wall fireplace unit. Unfortunately for Superior, the patent issued with a mistake in its one independent claim, which referred to both "rear walls" (plural) and "the rear wall" (singular). According to Superior, it was unaware of this inconsistency in its patent until after it sued Majestic. When it learned of the mistake, Superior sought and received a certificate of correction from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), correcting "rear walls" to "rear wall."

Upon Majestic’s motion for summary judgment, the district court declared the certificate invalid. Affirming, the Federal Circuit held that a mistake in a claim, the correction of which broadens the scope of coverage of that claim and is not clearly evident from the specification, drawings and prosecution history, is not a "mistake of a clerical or typographical nature" subject to correction under § 255. The court also held that a mistake, the correction of which broadens a claim, is not a "mistake of . . . minor character" subject to correction under § 255. While the two claim limitations at issue were mutually inconsistent, it was not clear from the prosecution history which of the two variants was correct. Accordingly, a broadening certificate of correction should not have issued.

claim interpretation

a parent claim must be interpreted more broadly than its dependent to avoid redundancy. Dow V US, 226 F3d 1334 (CAFC, 2000) cited in AWH.

逆均等論（The Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents）

逆均等論（The Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents）

逆均等論，一般說法源起於U.S. Supreme Court於1950年Graver Tank v. Linde對均等論的判決，其指出均等論也可用於對抗專利權人，

In its 1950 decision of Graver Tank v. Linde, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the doctrine of equivalents may also act against the interest of the patentee.8 When an accused product or proce ss is literally covered by the words of a patent claim, but is “so far changed in principle” that it performs in a “substantially different way,” the court may reach a finding of noninfringement.

但事實上，其起源應該可以推至1898年之更早的Boyden Power Brake Co. v. Westinghouse判決。

The doctrine received its genesis in Boyden Power Brake Co. v. Westinghouse, 170 U.S. 537 (1898), where the Court stated:

The patentee may bring the defendant within the letter of his claims, but if the latter has so far changed the principle of the device that the claims of the patent, literally construed, have ceased to represent his actual invention, he is as little subject to be adjudged an infringer as one who has violated the letter of a statute has to be convicted, when he has done nothing in conflict with its spirit and intent.

逆均等論在實務上，很少被利用“逆均等論”來判決不侵權，原因在於：

1、被告若依逆均等論主張不侵權時，代表已承認自己的產品已落於“文義侵權”。因此，被告只有在情非得以的情況下，主張“逆均等論”才對自己有利。

2、待鑑定對象己符合「文義讀取」，但實質上未利用發明(或新型)說明所揭示之技術手段時，適用「逆均等論」。但是，當專利的權利範圍，包含“實質上未利用發明(或新型)說明所揭示之技術手段”時，是否亦代表該權利範圍應為無效，因為其已“locking enablement”及“ writtten description”。

Even with this explanation, the reverse doctrine may seem anamolous, for if the claims measure
the invention, how can the claims cease to represent the actual invention? It seems that the proper resolution of a case in which the claims exceed the scope of the disclosed invention is to
hold the claims invalid as lacking enablement or a written description.

原本應無效的專利權範圍，讓它繼續有效，而僅依逆均等論，來限縮並排除不適當的範圍，我覺得是一種施捨或說是一種折衷的方法，因為逆均等論至少給了專利權人半個麵包而不是“沒得吃”。

The Federal Circuit discussed the rationale for the reverse doctrine as follows:

The reverse doctrine of equivalents is invoked when claims are written more broadly than the
disclosure warrants. The purpose of restricting the scope of such claims is not only to avoid a holding of infringement when a court deems it appropriate, but often is to preserve the validity of claims with respect to their original intended scope.

Texas Instruments Inc. v. United States Int’l Trade Comm’n, 846 F.2d 1369, 1372, 6 USPQ2d
1886 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (denial of rehearing). Thus, perhaps the reverse doctrine actually helps the patentee, in that it gives the patentee half-a-loaf rather than no loaf at all.

當然，它的存在也不是完全沒有道理的，它可以適用在極為不平常的案例，在迅速發展的高科技領域，產生具大的進步時，是可以給領先者超過他們貢獻的權利範圍（？應該給予超過的範圍嗎？）。只是，到目前為止，Federal Circuit還沒有遇到這樣的領域。

The reverse doctrine of equivalents was instead intended to apply to extraordinary cases. It provides courts with something of an escape hatch, useful when a finding of literal infringement would work an unwarranted extension of the claims. The reverse doctrine might pertain to rapidly progressing fields of high technology, where radical subsequent advances allow predecessor patents to appropriate subject matter entirely beyond the scope of their technical contribution. Such circumstances appear so uncommon that, in its two decades of existence, the Federal Circuit has yet to encounter them.

2002年於“ Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc.”說的更清楚明白，「於CAFC判例，適合逆均等論判決不侵權的判決個數為零」。逆均等論僅不過是“過時的例外”。

In Tate Access Floors, Inc. v. Interface Architectural Resources, Inc., the Federal Circuit made abundantly clear that the reverse doctrine of equivalents was of extremely limited applicability. Judge Gajarsa observed that: “Not once has this court affirmed a decision finding noninfringement based on the reverse doctrine of equivalents.” Describing the doctrine an “an
anachronistic exception,” the court refused to apply or extend the reverse doctrine of equivalents.

3、應“正確的解釋申請專利範圍”。

小弟曾於某篇文章中看到地院依逆均等論判決不侵權，但卻被CAFC法官reverse，其認為地院的權利範圍解釋錯誤，應加入“其他限制條件”，只是忘了該文章出處，也忘了該判例名稱，有點可惜，目前正在尋找當中。不過，在此介紹一個“判例”，Multiform v. Medzam (Fed. Cir 1998)，有一點點相關：

Claim 1: A packet for absorbing and immobilizing a liquid comprising an envelope which is degradable in said liquid...

Specification:"...starch paper which is degradable in water and other liquids...dissolve..."

於此案例中，權利範圍使用“degradable”但於說明書中卻使用“dissolve”，雖然被告其製品已落入“degradable”的文義範圍，但是法官沒有依逆均等論進行判決，而認為要解釋一技術用語，最好的來源為說明書及申請專利過程檔案，而將“degradable”解釋成“dissolve”，限縮了不合理的權利範圍。

http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/PDF/2004DLTR0010.pdf
In other words, properly construed claims of a traditional product should be specific enough that it should not read on the nanoproduct in the first instance.


其他..

1、於”summary judgment”，是不可適用逆均等論，因為其為“事實問題”而非“法律問題”。

The closest the court came was the in banc decision in SRI International v. Matsushita Electric Corp. of America, 775 F.2d 1107, 227 USPQ 577 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (in banc), which, in a 6-5 vote, reversed a summary judgment of noninfringement based on the reverse doctrine of equivalents, finding issues of fact and remanding for trial on the issue.

2、適用方式：
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/reverse-doctrine-of-equivalents.html
How Does the Reverse Doctrine of Equivalents Work?
In determining whether or not to use the reverse doctrine of equivalents, a court will consider several factors:
What is the actual scope of the patent? Does it cover the new invention?
If so, should that patent extend to the new invention? This is the major issue that the reverse doctrine of equivalents must address. What is the fair scope of the patent?
Has the new invention sufficiently transformed the original invention such that it should fall outside the scope of the patent of the original invention?





參考文章如下：
一、 日本網站找到的文章：「An Analysis of Trends in the Construction of U.S. Patent Claims: 1997-2002」第24頁
http://www.iip.or.jp/summary/pdf/thomas.PDF
二、專利侵害鑑定要點草案
http://www.tipo.gov.tw/attachment/tempUpload/81786957/專利侵害鑑定要點草案.doc
三、Intellectual propert_Patent Law Course Materials.pdf
Professor Wagner
連結：一整本電子書
四、自己整理過的blog。
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2006/02/claimcafc.html
五、PROTECTING THE NEXT SMALL THING: NANOTECHNOLOGY AND THE REVERSE
DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
此篇奈米領域的專利工程師可以讀一讀。權利要求用“微小”時，某一段範圍的數值，會不會被依“逆均等論”不侵害？

優惠期與國際優先權

優惠期與國際優先權

更詳細的問題，可參考哈今的討論，以下為“專利法--理論與實務”第173頁的內容摘錄：

倘申請人於其提出第一次之專利申請以前，就其申請專利之發明、新型或新式樣已有公開展覽之事實時，縱申請人係於新穎喪失例外之六個月優惠期間內提出第一次之專利申請而無新穎性喪失之問題，然此際，優先權期間究應自其公開展覽之日起算，亦或自其第一次申請起算？

此問題之處理，應依保護工業財產權巴黎公約第十一條第二款之規定，優先權期間自該發明公開展覽之日起算。

作者：陳智超
isbn：978-957-11-3633-5
五南出版

第十一條
(1)各同盟國家應依其國內法之規定，對於任一同盟國領域內政府舉行或承認之國際展覽會中所展出商品之專利發明，新型，新式樣及商標賦予臨暫時性保護。
(2)前揭暫時性保護，不應延長第四條所規定之期間。倘申請人於稍後提出優先權之主張，則任一國之主管機關得規定優先權期間係自商品參展之日起算。
(3)各國得令申請人檢具必要之證明文件，以證明所展出之商品及參展日期。
Article 11(a)
(1) The countries of the Union shall, in conformity with their domestic legislation(b), grant temporary protection(c) to patentable inventions, utility models, industrial designs, and trademarks(d), in respect of goods exhibited at official or officially recognized international exhibitions(e) held in the territory of any of them(f).
(2) Such temporary protection shall not extend the periods provided by Article 4. If, later, the right of priority is invoked, the authorities of any country may provide that the period shall start from the date of introduction of the goods into the exhibition(g).
(3) Each country may require, as proof of the identity of the article exhibited and of the date of its introduction, such documentary evidence as it considers necessary(h).

可專利性分析及侵權分析

可專利性分析及侵權分析

最近因為某些原因，開啟了我想整理“可專利性分析及侵權分析”之間的關聯，以下僅是初步的整理，以及我所找到的相關判決，等到讀得不較熟了之後，再重新整理一次。

自己做過的整理
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2005/06/blog-post_18.html
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2005/07/blog-post_19.html

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/matters/matters-9609.html
一個美國專利律師自製的專利字典
That Which Infringes if Later, Anticipates if Earlier: A rule stating the equivalence between two tests under patent law (i.e., the test of infringement of a patent and the test of anticipation in the prior art to invalidate a patent). If the claim of a patent is literally infringed by a prior art reference, then the claim is anticipated by that prior art reference and, therefore, is unpatentable. Note that there cannot be anticipation of a claim by equivalents.

幾則舊判例：
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. (Fed. Cir. 1984)
SSIH Equip. S.A. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Lewmar Marine, Inc. v. Barient, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1987)

關於以侵權角度來判斷是否具新穎性，請參考以下連結：
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2005/06/blog-post_18.html

以上連結是我於2005年6月13日所做的blog，請您們參考，其中請特別注意下面幾段文字：A century-old axiom of patent law holds that a product "which would literally infringe if later in time anticipates if earlier."
最早出現以侵權角度來判斷是否具新穎性的判例，應該是這一個：accord Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 (1889) ("That which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.").

其他以侵權角度來判斷"雙重專利"的判例，請參考以下連結：
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/2005/07/blog-post_19.html

還有請參照附件（amendment2003.pdf），於其內第12頁，撰寫到：
The test currently used for same invention-type double patenting is "whether one of the claims being compared could be literally infringed without literally infringing the other. If it could be, the claims do not define identically the same invention." In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 441 (C.C.P.A. 1970).


事實上，除了以侵權角度來看申請時的可專利性判斷，如新穎性及雙重專利，其他還有以“進步性”的判斷來測試是否具“均等侵權”的學說，其大意為：若疑似侵權物若相對於被侵權專利，具有可專利性（進步性）時，該疑似侵權物，就不會落入被侵權專利的“均等範圍”。

原因在於，具進步性一定要是非“insubstantial differences（or insubstantial change）”，而均等範圍具一定要是“insubstantial differences”。

請參考附件（Intellectual propert_Patent Law Course Materials.pdf），第420頁。

If the accused infringer has received a patent on the product or process accused of infringing, should that affect the doctrine of equivalents analysis?

Evidence of a patent covering the change, in my view, is clearly relevant unless the patent is invalid. A substitution in a patented invention cannot be both nonobvious and insubstantial. I would apply nonobviousness as the test for the "insubstantial change" requirement of Hilton Davis.

所以侵權分析的概念，不見得一定不同於可專利性分析。不過，我也覺得它們其實是不相同的概念，因為侵權分析一定是“製品”和“文字”間的比對；但是可專利性（新穎性）分析卻常常是“文字”和“文字”的比對，最大的不同在於文字可以有範圍，而製品則沒有。例如，文字可以用“金屬”來表示範圍，但在製品時只能用某一種金屬來製造，只有元件沒有範圍。

1893年，美國最高法院的判例
U.S. Supreme Court
KNAPP v. MORSS, 150 U.S. 221 (1893)
http://ides13.googlepages.com/1893.doc

they would constitute an infringement thereof, for the rule is well established 'that which infringes, if later, would anticipate, if earlier.'