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.