請參照美國MPEP2173.05(i) Negative Limitations的記載：「In addition, the court found that the negative limitation “incapable of forming a dye with said oxidized developing agent” was definite because the boundaries of the patent protection sought were clear. In re Barr, 444 F.2d 588, 170 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1971).」亦即從一個明確範圍中再以一負面表現的限制條件去排除部分範圍，這亦是明確的。
此外，關於負面表現，可以再參考臺灣審查基準「3.4.1.5表現方式所致之不明確」之記載：「惟若此類用語在特定技術領域中具有明確的涵義，或該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者以發明說明為基礎能瞭解其範圍，而不會導致申請專利範圍不明確者，則得以此類用語表現」。
7/14/2011
權利範圍差異化 (doctrine of claim differentiation)
權利範圍差異化 (doctrine of claim differentiation)
智慧財產法院98年度民專訴字第29號判決指出：「除有特別之限定情形外，不同編號之請求項具有個別獨立之權利範圍」
智慧財產法院98年度民專訴字第29號判決指出：「除有特別之限定情形外，不同編號之請求項具有個別獨立之權利範圍」
6/25/2011
6/23/2011
國際專利侵權訴訟，美國案例 Voda v. Cordis。
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/images/stories/opinions-orders/05-1238.pdf
Voda v. Cordis
These foreign affiliates have not been joined to this action. To prevent confusion, we refer to the defendant-appellant as “Cordis U.S.”
Voda 是美國人，而 Cordis是美國企業。
於一訴訟中，Voda在美國以美國專利向Cordis提訴，隨後地方法院同意他修改訴狀，加入了外國的專利， Cordis向CAFC上訴。
CAFC的多數法官分別以下列的理由，撤銷地方法院的決定。
a. Treaties as the “supreme law of the land”
b. Comity and relations between sovereigns
c. Judicial economy
d. Convenience
e. Fairness
f. Section 1367(c) abuse of discretion
其中，於公平性中，CAFC提到以下事由。
e. Fairness
Therefore, assuming arguendo that the act of state doctrine applies, the doctrine would prevent our courts from inquiring into the validity of a foreign patent grant and require our courts to djudicate patent claims regardless of validity or enforceability. Given the number of U.S. patent cases that we resolve on validity or enforceability as opposed to infringement grounds, exercising such urisdiction could be fundamentally unfair to the alleged infringer where, as one amicus curiae points out, “the patent is in fact invalid and the defendant would be excused from liability on that basis in a foreign forum.” Voda has not shown in this case that the validity of the foreign patents would not be at issue. Indeed, Cordis U.S. asserts otherwise.
由於國家行為原則，美國的法院不能夠審專利的有效性，因此對被告不公平。於本案中，Voda 無法證明外國專利的有效性不是爭點，相反地Cordis U.S.卻聲稱外國專利的有效性是爭點。
個人意見：由此段看來，Voda v. Cordis 的既決效力，不必然會及於「專利有效性不是爭點」的訴訟。或者說，CAFC的多數法官也沒有積極地反對在美國進行「以外國專利為有效之前提下」的專利侵權訴訟。
CAFC的少數法官（Newman法官）提及執行力不會是爭點。
Enforcement Is Not An Issue
There is no issue raised by either party concerning enforcement by a foreign court of the district court's potential decision concerning any of the Voda foreign patents. This case does not raise issues of comity, treaty, and diplomacy, when judgments are sought to be enforced in another country.
關於「審理外國專利的有效性及是否侵權」事宜，是否會違反國際條約，Newman法官以下見解的見解是，“不違反”。
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and the TRIPS Agreement of the World Trade Organization
None of these treaties prohibits resolution by a national court of private disputes that include foreign patent rights. The question is not as presented by the panel majority, whether any treaty imposes "an international duty" on a nation's courts to render decision concerning foreign patents. The question is whether any treaty prohibits a national court from resolving a dispute between entities under the personal jurisdiction of the court. No treaty bars such dispute resolution.
最後Newman法官又提及，已經有外國法院在審理美國的專利。
Courts in other countries have not refrained from applying foreign patent law, including United States law. A Japanese court recently applied the United States doctrine of equivalents in a suit between Japanese companies that included questions of infringement of United States patents, in K.K. Coral Corp. v. Marine Bio K.K., Case No. 1943(wa)/2002
(Tokyo District Court, Oct. 16, 2003). All nations have recognized their obligation to provide a judicial forum to address disputes involving their citizens; no warrant has been shown to remove foreign patents from this purview.
個人意見：
Newman法官所說的判決，是東京地方法院的判決，東京地方法為會如此判，大概是因為前年之日本最高法院的決定。不過先前是日本最高法院的判決，其效力僅及於「專利有效性不是爭點」的訴訟，但於本判決中，東京地方法院更是大膽地跨出一步，即使是專利有效性也一併審。
K.K. Coral Corp. v. Marine Bio K.K., Case No. 1943(wa)/2002 (Tokyo District Court, Oct. 16, 2003).
Voda v. Cordis
These foreign affiliates have not been joined to this action. To prevent confusion, we refer to the defendant-appellant as “Cordis U.S.”
Voda 是美國人，而 Cordis是美國企業。
於一訴訟中，Voda在美國以美國專利向Cordis提訴，隨後地方法院同意他修改訴狀，加入了外國的專利， Cordis向CAFC上訴。
CAFC的多數法官分別以下列的理由，撤銷地方法院的決定。
a. Treaties as the “supreme law of the land”
b. Comity and relations between sovereigns
c. Judicial economy
d. Convenience
e. Fairness
f. Section 1367(c) abuse of discretion
其中，於公平性中，CAFC提到以下事由。
e. Fairness
Therefore, assuming arguendo that the act of state doctrine applies, the doctrine would prevent our courts from inquiring into the validity of a foreign patent grant and require our courts to djudicate patent claims regardless of validity or enforceability. Given the number of U.S. patent cases that we resolve on validity or enforceability as opposed to infringement grounds, exercising such urisdiction could be fundamentally unfair to the alleged infringer where, as one amicus curiae points out, “the patent is in fact invalid and the defendant would be excused from liability on that basis in a foreign forum.” Voda has not shown in this case that the validity of the foreign patents would not be at issue. Indeed, Cordis U.S. asserts otherwise.
由於國家行為原則，美國的法院不能夠審專利的有效性，因此對被告不公平。於本案中，Voda 無法證明外國專利的有效性不是爭點，相反地Cordis U.S.卻聲稱外國專利的有效性是爭點。
個人意見：由此段看來，Voda v. Cordis 的既決效力，不必然會及於「專利有效性不是爭點」的訴訟。或者說，CAFC的多數法官也沒有積極地反對在美國進行「以外國專利為有效之前提下」的專利侵權訴訟。
CAFC的少數法官（Newman法官）提及執行力不會是爭點。
Enforcement Is Not An Issue
There is no issue raised by either party concerning enforcement by a foreign court of the district court's potential decision concerning any of the Voda foreign patents. This case does not raise issues of comity, treaty, and diplomacy, when judgments are sought to be enforced in another country.
關於「審理外國專利的有效性及是否侵權」事宜，是否會違反國際條約，Newman法官以下見解的見解是，“不違反”。
Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, the Patent Cooperation Treaty, and the TRIPS Agreement of the World Trade Organization
None of these treaties prohibits resolution by a national court of private disputes that include foreign patent rights. The question is not as presented by the panel majority, whether any treaty imposes "an international duty" on a nation's courts to render decision concerning foreign patents. The question is whether any treaty prohibits a national court from resolving a dispute between entities under the personal jurisdiction of the court. No treaty bars such dispute resolution.
最後Newman法官又提及，已經有外國法院在審理美國的專利。
Courts in other countries have not refrained from applying foreign patent law, including United States law. A Japanese court recently applied the United States doctrine of equivalents in a suit between Japanese companies that included questions of infringement of United States patents, in K.K. Coral Corp. v. Marine Bio K.K., Case No. 1943(wa)/2002
(Tokyo District Court, Oct. 16, 2003). All nations have recognized their obligation to provide a judicial forum to address disputes involving their citizens; no warrant has been shown to remove foreign patents from this purview.
個人意見：
Newman法官所說的判決，是東京地方法院的判決，東京地方法為會如此判，大概是因為前年之日本最高法院的決定。不過先前是日本最高法院的判決，其效力僅及於「專利有效性不是爭點」的訴訟，但於本判決中，東京地方法院更是大膽地跨出一步，即使是專利有效性也一併審。
K.K. Coral Corp. v. Marine Bio K.K., Case No. 1943(wa)/2002 (Tokyo District Court, Oct. 16, 2003).
【更新】本案有少數法官（Newman法官）提反對意見，Newman法官有提及一個東京地方法院的判決，提醒多數法官外國法院已在審美國的專利有效性及侵權訴訟了，東京地方法院為會如此判，是依據該案之前一年之日本最高法院的決定。不過先前之日本最高法院的判決，其效力僅及於「專利有效性不是爭點」的訴訟，然而東京地方法院更是大膽地跨出一步，判決即使是專利有效性也一併審。其理由在於：侵權訴訟中的專利有效抗辨判決，僅是相對效，不會損害國外之專利的有效性。
K.K. Coral Corp. v. Marine Bio K.K., Case No. 1943(wa)/2002 (Tokyo District Court, Oct. 16, 2003).
6/21/2011
專利有效或無效之確認的訴訟的種類
專利有效性的爭執，是專利侵權訴訟中被告常見之抗辯事由之一。分別有兩種做法：
一為、專利無效之訴
被告一方面向智慧局提出舉發，一方面再據以依專利法第90條之規定，而向民事法院聲請裁定停止審判。透過此方式，會導致專利侵權訴訟程序延宕。
專利法第90條係規定「得」而非「應」停止審判，但以往實務上法官常以專利是否有效係訴訟成立與否之前提要件，故除非舉發案之正當性顯有重大瑕疵，否則往往會准裁定停止審判，專利無效之訴的特徵在於，將“於專利有效性的問題”，當作本訴所進行的訴訟，被告僅是第三者，兩造當事人分別為“智慧局”及“專利權人”，其所產生的效力為“對世效”(in rem judgment)，敗訴的專利權人不得再對其他人提起侵權訴訟。
另一為、專利侵權訴訟中的“專利無效抗辨”
被告依智慧財產案件審理法第16條所規定，於智慧財產民事訴訟中，提出專利無效抗辯，亦即當作反訴手段，此時由法院自行判斷（缺少了專利主管機關的意見），而不適用有關停止訴訟程序之規定。
由於專利侵權訴訟中的“專利無效抗辨”，當事者依然是原告及被告，且法院自行判斷專利無效後，該既判力之效力僅及於當事者雙方，亦即專利侵權訴訟中的“專利無效抗辨”所產生的效方為“相對效”。
原因在於專利權之撤銷的權利在於智慧局，即使於一專利侵權訴訟中被法院認為無效，在智慧局被撤銷該專利前，該專利依舊有效。
相關資訊可再參考：
專利侵權訴訟實務
www.taiwanncf.org.tw/ttforum/43/43-19.pdf
一為、專利無效之訴
被告一方面向智慧局提出舉發，一方面再據以依專利法第90條之規定，而向民事法院聲請裁定停止審判。透過此方式，會導致專利侵權訴訟程序延宕。
專利法第90條：「關於發明專利權之民事訴訟，在申請案、舉發案、撤銷案確定前，得停止審判。法院依前項規定裁定停止審判時，應注意舉發案提出之正當性。舉發案涉及侵權訴訟案件之審理者，專利專責機關得優先審查。」
專利法第90條係規定「得」而非「應」停止審判，但以往實務上法官常以專利是否有效係訴訟成立與否之前提要件，故除非舉發案之正當性顯有重大瑕疵，否則往往會准裁定停止審判，專利無效之訴的特徵在於，將“於專利有效性的問題”，當作本訴所進行的訴訟，被告僅是第三者，兩造當事人分別為“智慧局”及“專利權人”，其所產生的效力為“對世效”(in rem judgment)，敗訴的專利權人不得再對其他人提起侵權訴訟。
另一為、專利侵權訴訟中的“專利無效抗辨”
被告依智慧財產案件審理法第16條所規定，於智慧財產民事訴訟中，提出專利無效抗辯，亦即當作反訴手段，此時由法院自行判斷（缺少了專利主管機關的意見），而不適用有關停止訴訟程序之規定。
第十六條（撤銷、廢止原因之判斷）
當事人主張或抗辯智慧財產權有應撤銷、廢止之原因者，法院應就其主張或抗辯有無理由自為判斷，不適用民事訴訟法、行政訴訟法、商標法、專利法、植物品種及種苗法或其他法律有關停止訴訟程序之規定。
前項情形，法院認有撤銷、廢止之原因時，智慧財產權人於該民事訴訟中不得對於他造主張權利。
由於專利侵權訴訟中的“專利無效抗辨”，當事者依然是原告及被告，且法院自行判斷專利無效後，該既判力之效力僅及於當事者雙方，亦即專利侵權訴訟中的“專利無效抗辨”所產生的效方為“相對效”。
原因在於專利權之撤銷的權利在於智慧局，即使於一專利侵權訴訟中被法院認為無效，在智慧局被撤銷該專利前，該專利依舊有效。
相關資訊可再參考：
專利侵權訴訟實務
www.taiwanncf.org.tw/ttforum/43/43-19.pdf
6/16/2011
屬地主義？
專利為屬地主義，A國的專利應在A國法院以A國的法律審理。
但試想如下情況：
X為日本人，在美國具有一專利，但在日本沒有相同的專利。
Y為日本法人，在日本製造X之專利的產品， Y在美國有100%持股的子公司 Z， 美國子公司 Z 將侵權產品輸往美國。
【2011/6/24更新】於法院審理過程中，Y沒有提出專利有效性的爭執。
試問：X可以在日本法院向Y提起侵權訴訟嗎？
這個問題是關於是否要適用準據法。
參見此篇文章。
日本地方法院：可適用準據法。
日本高等法院：不可適用準據法，（尊重專利為屬地主義的慣例）
日本最高法院：可適用準據法，（兩當事人皆為日本人，且該案是有關在日本發生之行為的請求）。
http://park2.wakwak.com/~willway-legal/kls-c.case.802.html
可以比較日本高等法院及最高法院的判決，兩者是完全相反的見解。最高法院的見解是適用準據法，可在日本提起訴訟，而且是依美國的專利法來審理。
另外此種案例，還涉及到兩個問題，一為“是否適用準據法”；一為“決定適用準據法後，如何選擇準據法”。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/国际私法
其目標有三：
1、描述法院根據何種條件才有權受理涉外案件。
兩臺灣公司間若需要在美國進行侵權訴訟，
其實可以考慮不再美國打訴訟，而直接在臺灣的法院進行。
臺灣的智權從事人員，會有更多人從事與訴訟相關的工作，
且兩公司各別的訴訟費用應該也可以省很多。
更重要的事，在臺灣即可擁有參與美國訴訟的經驗，
能夠提昇臺灣的智權從事人員的能力，
以後打國際訴訟，即便還是存在差異，但應該更能駕輕就熟吧。
日本高等法院：
「特許権については、国際的に広く承認されているいわゆる属地主義の原則が適用され、外国の特許権を内国で侵害するとされる行為がある場合でも、特段の法律又は条約に基づく規定がない限り、外国特許権に基づく差止め及び廃棄を内国裁判所に求めることはできないというべきであり、外国特許権に基づく差止め及び廃棄の請求権については、法例で規定する準拠法決定の問題は生じる余地がない。…本件差止め及び廃棄請求は理由がないといわざるを得ない。」
日本最高法院：
「本件差止請求及び本件廃棄請求は、私人の財産権に基づく請求であり、本件両当事者が住所又は本店所在地を我が国とする日本人及び日本法人であり、我が国における行為に関する請求ではあるが、米国特許法により付与された権利に基づく請求であるという点において、渉外的要素を含むものであるから、準拠法を決定する必要がある。…米国特許権に基づく差止め及び廃棄請求については、その法律関係の性質を特許権の効力と決定すべきである。…特許権の効力の準拠法に関しては，法例等に直接の定めがないから，条理に基づいて，当該特許権と最も密接な関係がある国である当該特許権が登録された国の法律によると解するのが相当である。けだし，（ア）特許権は，国ごとに出願及び登録を経て権利として認められるものであり，（イ）特許権について属地主義の原則を採用する国が多く，それによれば，各国の特許権が，その成立，移転，効力等につき当該国の法律によって定められ，特許権の効力が当該国の領域内においてのみ認められるとされており，（ウ）特許権の効力が当該国の領域内においてのみ認められる以上，当該特許権の保護が要求される国は，登録された国であることに照らせば，特許権と最も密接な関係があるのは，当該特許権が登録された国と解するのが相当であるからである。…したがって，特許権に基づく差止め及び廃棄請求の準拠法は，当該特許権が登録された国の法律であると解すべきであり，本件差止請求及び本件廃棄請求については，本件米国特許権が登録された国であるアメリカ合衆国の法律が準拠法となる」
http://park2.wakwak.com/~willway-legal/kls-c.case.802.html
但試想如下情況：
X為日本人，在美國具有一專利，但在日本沒有相同的專利。
Y為日本法人，在日本製造X之專利的產品， Y在美國有100%持股的子公司 Z， 美國子公司 Z 將侵權產品輸往美國。
【2011/6/24更新】於法院審理過程中，Y沒有提出專利有效性的爭執。
試問：X可以在日本法院向Y提起侵權訴訟嗎？
這個問題是關於是否要適用準據法。
參見此篇文章。
日本地方法院：可適用準據法。
日本高等法院：不可適用準據法，（尊重專利為屬地主義的慣例）
日本最高法院：可適用準據法，（兩當事人皆為日本人，且該案是有關在日本發生之行為的請求）。
http://park2.wakwak.com/~willway-legal/kls-c.case.802.html
可以比較日本高等法院及最高法院的判決，兩者是完全相反的見解。最高法院的見解是適用準據法，可在日本提起訴訟，而且是依美國的專利法來審理。
請留意，前述案例，並沒有涉及到「專利有效性」的問題，審理專利侵權案件，最引起爭議的就是「專利的有效性」，因為專利是一個國家給與的權利，屬於該國家的專屬管轄權。
另外此種案例，還涉及到兩個問題，一為“是否適用準據法”；一為“決定適用準據法後，如何選擇準據法”。
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/国际私法
其目標有三：
1、描述法院根據何種條件才有權受理涉外案件。
決定受理時，則“適用準據法”，此案最具爭議的地方。2、明確每類案件之當事人的權利義務必須根據哪一套內國法來判定。
決定適用準據法後，選擇“與專利權最密切之國家的專利法”作為準據法，此案為美國的專利法。3、具體規定在什麼場合下外國判決能否被承認與以及如何執行的問題。
P大所點出來的問題，臺灣法院與美國法院見解不一時，美國法院會承認臺灣法院的判決嗎？
兩臺灣公司間若需要在美國進行侵權訴訟，
其實可以考慮不再美國打訴訟，而直接在臺灣的法院進行。
臺灣的智權從事人員，會有更多人從事與訴訟相關的工作，
且兩公司各別的訴訟費用應該也可以省很多。
更重要的事，在臺灣即可擁有參與美國訴訟的經驗，
能夠提昇臺灣的智權從事人員的能力，
以後打國際訴訟，即便還是存在差異，但應該更能駕輕就熟吧。
日本高等法院：
「特許権については、国際的に広く承認されているいわゆる属地主義の原則が適用され、外国の特許権を内国で侵害するとされる行為がある場合でも、特段の法律又は条約に基づく規定がない限り、外国特許権に基づく差止め及び廃棄を内国裁判所に求めることはできないというべきであり、外国特許権に基づく差止め及び廃棄の請求権については、法例で規定する準拠法決定の問題は生じる余地がない。…本件差止め及び廃棄請求は理由がないといわざるを得ない。」
日本最高法院：
「本件差止請求及び本件廃棄請求は、私人の財産権に基づく請求であり、本件両当事者が住所又は本店所在地を我が国とする日本人及び日本法人であり、我が国における行為に関する請求ではあるが、米国特許法により付与された権利に基づく請求であるという点において、渉外的要素を含むものであるから、準拠法を決定する必要がある。…米国特許権に基づく差止め及び廃棄請求については、その法律関係の性質を特許権の効力と決定すべきである。…特許権の効力の準拠法に関しては，法例等に直接の定めがないから，条理に基づいて，当該特許権と最も密接な関係がある国である当該特許権が登録された国の法律によると解するのが相当である。けだし，（ア）特許権は，国ごとに出願及び登録を経て権利として認められるものであり，（イ）特許権について属地主義の原則を採用する国が多く，それによれば，各国の特許権が，その成立，移転，効力等につき当該国の法律によって定められ，特許権の効力が当該国の領域内においてのみ認められるとされており，（ウ）特許権の効力が当該国の領域内においてのみ認められる以上，当該特許権の保護が要求される国は，登録された国であることに照らせば，特許権と最も密接な関係があるのは，当該特許権が登録された国と解するのが相当であるからである。…したがって，特許権に基づく差止め及び廃棄請求の準拠法は，当該特許権が登録された国の法律であると解すべきであり，本件差止請求及び本件廃棄請求については，本件米国特許権が登録された国であるアメリカ合衆国の法律が準拠法となる」
http://park2.wakwak.com/~willway-legal/kls-c.case.802.html
美國與日本對於「先前技術阻卻」之操作實務上的差界
美國：
Typically, a "hypothetical" claim is drafted to read on the accused device or system. A hypothetical claim may be constructed to literally cover the accused device. Id. If such a claim would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, then the patentee has overreached, and the accused device is noninfringing as a matter of law.
日本：
(4)被控侵權物品之差異部分不可與專利發明申請時之公知技術同一，或為公知技術所能輕易推想。
美國與日本對於「先前技術阻卻」之操作實務上的差界是，
美國刻意去撰寫一個“hypothetical claim”進行可專利性判斷，而
日本是直接以“被控侵權物品”進行可專利性判斷。
雖然如此，但是直接將“被控侵權物品”，用文字描述後，
那麼該段文字就可視為“hypothetical claim”。
所以，兩者間實質上應無差異。
倒是日本均等論適用要件的第一點，和美國的有差異。
(1)被控侵權物品與申請專利範圍之差異部分，非專利發明之本質部分，
Claim：I + d +E + s
其中第1及3個元件( I及 E )為具可專利性的特徵時，I及E會被認為專利發明之本質部分不得適用均等論。
僅有第2及4個元件( d 及 s )可適用均等論。
滿奇怪的，不知要件(1)的法理為何？
Typically, a "hypothetical" claim is drafted to read on the accused device or system. A hypothetical claim may be constructed to literally cover the accused device. Id. If such a claim would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, then the patentee has overreached, and the accused device is noninfringing as a matter of law.
日本：
(4)被控侵權物品之差異部分不可與專利發明申請時之公知技術同一，或為公知技術所能輕易推想。
美國與日本對於「先前技術阻卻」之操作實務上的差界是，
美國刻意去撰寫一個“hypothetical claim”進行可專利性判斷，而
日本是直接以“被控侵權物品”進行可專利性判斷。
雖然如此，但是直接將“被控侵權物品”，用文字描述後，
那麼該段文字就可視為“hypothetical claim”。
所以，兩者間實質上應無差異。
倒是日本均等論適用要件的第一點，和美國的有差異。
(1)被控侵權物品與申請專利範圍之差異部分，非專利發明之本質部分，
Claim：I + d +E + s
其中第1及3個元件( I及 E )為具可專利性的特徵時，I及E會被認為專利發明之本質部分不得適用均等論。
僅有第2及4個元件( d 及 s )可適用均等論。
滿奇怪的，不知要件(1)的法理為何？
6/14/2011
臺灣法院對於是否適用均等論所提出的五個要件
99年度民專訴字第150號
臺灣法院對於是否適用均等論所提出的五個要件。
1.按被控侵權物品落入申請專利之均等範圍，必須符合：
(1)被控侵權物品與申請專利範圍之差異部分，非專利發明之本質部分，
(2)被控侵權物品經換置之差異部分，仍可達成專利發明之目的，並可產生同一之作用效果，
(3)被控侵權物品之差異部分於製造之時點所能容易思及，
(4)被控侵權物品之差異部分不可與專利發明申請時之公知技術同一，或為公知技術
所能輕易推想，
(5)被控侵權物品於專利發明申請程序中並無遭有意識地自申請專利範圍中排除之特別情事存在。
如被控侵權物品無法符合上開5 個要件其中之一，即不能認為被控侵權物品落入申請專利之均等範圍。
臺灣法院對於是否適用均等論所提出的五個要件。
1.按被控侵權物品落入申請專利之均等範圍，必須符合：
(1)被控侵權物品與申請專利範圍之差異部分，非專利發明之本質部分，
(2)被控侵權物品經換置之差異部分，仍可達成專利發明之目的，並可產生同一之作用效果，
(3)被控侵權物品之差異部分於製造之時點所能容易思及，
(4)被控侵權物品之差異部分不可與專利發明申請時之公知技術同一，或為公知技術
所能輕易推想，
(5)被控侵權物品於專利發明申請程序中並無遭有意識地自申請專利範圍中排除之特別情事存在。
如被控侵權物品無法符合上開5 個要件其中之一，即不能認為被控侵權物品落入申請專利之均等範圍。
6/13/2011
HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS & DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS & DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS
是均等成立，且先前技術阻卻成立，不侵權。
^^^^^^^^^^
此處所謂的「均等成立」，不是代表真的「均等成立」，僅是一種假設。
要推翻一個理論，有時從正面的論證很難著手或說服人，
此時，可先假設它成立，再利用反面的論證方式，推翻此假設。
亦即，預先假設均等成立，再利用「先前技術阻卻」來測試假設的均等範圍。
僅有通過「先前技術阻卻」的測試，此時“真的”均等才成立。
什麼是「均等」？這是很難有一個統一的客觀的答案，
法官嘗試著創造各種的方法，來儘可能地找出一個客觀的範圍。
從積極的角度，亦即使用「function, way, result」或insubstantial differences 」
等方法，將文字範圍擴大至均等範圍。但，擴大後的範圍，適當嗎？
而且，每個人擴大後的範圍也可能不一樣啊，從多個均等範圍，
如何選一個適當的均等範圍？
因此，法官再創造出「先前技術阻卻」或「禁反言」的方法，
從消極面的角度，來確認「擴大後的範圍」是否合理；或者是否能夠「擴大範圍」。
基本上，這些都是方法論，用來決定是否適用均等的方法，僅有通過這些方法
的範圍，才是適當的均等範圍，此時均等侵權才能夠成立。
請留意「HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS」的關鍵字。
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1029.html
It is well settled law that a patentee cannot assert a range of equivalents that encompasses the prior art. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assocs., 904 F.2d 677, 683, 14 USPQ2d 1942, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To test this limit, the notion of a hypothetical claim may be useful. Id. at 684, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. A hypothetical claim may be constructed to literally cover the accused device. Id. If such a claim would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, then the patentee has overreached, and the accused device is noninfringing as a matter of law. Id. at 683-84, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
專利侵害鑑定要點第 44 頁
(三) 判斷「先前技術阻卻」之注意事項
1.主張「先前技術阻卻」有利於被告，故應由被告負舉證責任。若被告未主張「先前
技術阻卻」，他人不得主動提供相關先前技術資料，以判斷待鑑定對象是否適用「
先前技術阻卻」。
The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
http://www.bakerbotts.com/64/infocenter/publications/detail.aspx?id=1974
"Hypothetical claim analysis" is a methodology for assisting in the determination as to whether the patentee, in asserting a right to exclude under the doctrine of equivalents, has exceeded the bounds of the third limitation and impermissibly ensnared the prior art. Typically, a "hypothetical" claim is drafted to read on the accused device or system. This is called a "hypothetical claim" because it has not been issued within a patent – it is an assumption. The next question is whether this hypothetical claim would have been allowed to issue in a patent by the Patent Office (i.e., is the hypothetical claim patentable over the prior art?). If so, then the doctrine of equivalents would apply – the prior art would not preclude assertion of a range of equivalents to cover the accused product.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/comments/99_1018.htm
HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS - DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS - OBVIOUSNESS - INVALIDITY - TEMPLATE PANEL
是均等成立，且先前技術阻卻成立，不侵權。
^^^^^^^^^^
此處所謂的「均等成立」，不是代表真的「均等成立」，僅是一種假設。
要推翻一個理論，有時從正面的論證很難著手或說服人，
此時，可先假設它成立，再利用反面的論證方式，推翻此假設。
亦即，預先假設均等成立，再利用「先前技術阻卻」來測試假設的均等範圍。
僅有通過「先前技術阻卻」的測試，此時“真的”均等才成立。
什麼是「均等」？這是很難有一個統一的客觀的答案，
法官嘗試著創造各種的方法，來儘可能地找出一個客觀的範圍。
從積極的角度，亦即使用「function, way, result」或insubstantial differences 」
等方法，將文字範圍擴大至均等範圍。但，擴大後的範圍，適當嗎？
而且，每個人擴大後的範圍也可能不一樣啊，從多個均等範圍，
如何選一個適當的均等範圍？
因此，法官再創造出「先前技術阻卻」或「禁反言」的方法，
從消極面的角度，來確認「擴大後的範圍」是否合理；或者是否能夠「擴大範圍」。
基本上，這些都是方法論，用來決定是否適用均等的方法，僅有通過這些方法
的範圍，才是適當的均等範圍，此時均等侵權才能夠成立。
請留意「HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS」的關鍵字。
http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/fed/opinions/01opinions/01-1029.html
It is well settled law that a patentee cannot assert a range of equivalents that encompasses the prior art. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Assocs., 904 F.2d 677, 683, 14 USPQ2d 1942, 1948 (Fed. Cir. 1990). To test this limit, the notion of a hypothetical claim may be useful. Id. at 684, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. A hypothetical claim may be constructed to literally cover the accused device. Id. If such a claim would be unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or 103, then the patentee has overreached, and the accused device is noninfringing as a matter of law. Id. at 683-84, 14 USPQ2d at 1948. The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
專利侵害鑑定要點第 44 頁
(三) 判斷「先前技術阻卻」之注意事項
1.主張「先前技術阻卻」有利於被告，故應由被告負舉證責任。若被告未主張「先前
技術阻卻」，他人不得主動提供相關先前技術資料，以判斷待鑑定對象是否適用「
先前技術阻卻」。
The burden of producing evidence of prior art to challenge a hypothetical claim rests with an accused infringer, but the burden of proving patentability of the hypothetical claim rests with the patentee. Streamfeeder, LLC v. Sure-Feed Sys., Inc., 175 F.3d 974, 984, 50 USPQ2d 1515, 1521 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
http://www.bakerbotts.com/64/infocenter/publications/detail.aspx?id=1974
"Hypothetical claim analysis" is a methodology for assisting in the determination as to whether the patentee, in asserting a right to exclude under the doctrine of equivalents, has exceeded the bounds of the third limitation and impermissibly ensnared the prior art. Typically, a "hypothetical" claim is drafted to read on the accused device or system. This is called a "hypothetical claim" because it has not been issued within a patent – it is an assumption. The next question is whether this hypothetical claim would have been allowed to issue in a patent by the Patent Office (i.e., is the hypothetical claim patentable over the prior art?). If so, then the doctrine of equivalents would apply – the prior art would not preclude assertion of a range of equivalents to cover the accused product.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/patent/comments/99_1018.htm
HYPOTHETICAL CLAIM ANALYSIS - DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS - OBVIOUSNESS - INVALIDITY - TEMPLATE PANEL
6/01/2011
委任狀的簽署人
委任狀的簽署人
(1) The statement may be signed by a person in the
organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the
organization. An officer (president, vice-president, secretary, or
treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the
organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is
acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. A person
having a title (manager, director, administrator, general counsel) that
does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is
not presumed to be an officer of the assignee or to have authority to
sign the statement on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney from
the inventors in an organization to a practitioner to prosecute a patent
application does not make the practitioner an official of an assignee or
empower the practitioner to sign the statement on behalf of the assignee.
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/324.html
MPEP Section 324, Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action
V. PARTY WHO MUST SIGN
(A) The submission may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization. 37 CFR 3.73(b)(2)(ii). An officer (chief executive officer, president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. Modifications of these basic titles are acceptable, such as vice-president for sales, executive vice-president, assistant treasurer, vice-chairman of the board of directors. In foreign countries, a person who holds the title "Manager" or "Director" is normally an officer and is presumed to have the authority to sign on behalf of the organization. A person having a title (administrator, general counsel) that does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is not presumed to have authority to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney (37 CFR 1.32(b)(4)) to a patent practitioner to prosecute a patent application executed by the applicant or the assignee of the entire interest does not make that practitioner an official of an assignee or empower the practitioner to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee.
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/com/sol/og/con/files/cons046.htm
(1) The statement may be signed by a person in the
organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the
organization. An officer (president, vice-president, secretary, or
treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the
organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is
acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. A person
having a title (manager, director, administrator, general counsel) that
does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is
not presumed to be an officer of the assignee or to have authority to
sign the statement on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney from
the inventors in an organization to a practitioner to prosecute a patent
application does not make the practitioner an official of an assignee or
empower the practitioner to sign the statement on behalf of the assignee.
http://www.bitlaw.com/source/mpep/324.html
MPEP Section 324, Establishing Right of Assignee To Take Action
V. PARTY WHO MUST SIGN
(A) The submission may be signed by a person in the organization having apparent authority to sign on behalf of the organization. 37 CFR 3.73(b)(2)(ii). An officer (chief executive officer, president, vice-president, secretary, or treasurer) is presumed to have authority to sign on behalf of the organization. The signature of the chairman of the board of directors is acceptable, but not the signature of an individual director. Modifications of these basic titles are acceptable, such as vice-president for sales, executive vice-president, assistant treasurer, vice-chairman of the board of directors. In foreign countries, a person who holds the title "Manager" or "Director" is normally an officer and is presumed to have the authority to sign on behalf of the organization. A person having a title (administrator, general counsel) that does not clearly set forth that person as an officer of the assignee is not presumed to have authority to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee. A power of attorney (37 CFR 1.32(b)(4)) to a patent practitioner to prosecute a patent application executed by the applicant or the assignee of the entire interest does not make that practitioner an official of an assignee or empower the practitioner to sign the submission on behalf of the assignee.
5/22/2011
一些專利法之中、英、日文版的連結。
在日本特許廳找日文特許法，還真不容易找到。
不過倒是找到了各國專利法的日文版。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/shiryou/s_sonota/fips/mokuji.htm
另外也找到一本很好的電子書，
「工業所有権法(産業財産権法)逐条解説〔第18版〕 2010.3.18」
裡面也有法條。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/hourei/kakokai/pdf/cikujyoukaisetu/all.pdf
實體書市價應該要8800日圓吧，身邊有在book off買的中古書，版本比較舊，也要4000日圓。
日文特許法：
http://www.houko.com/00/01/S34/121.HTM
日本所有法條的英譯，應該在這裡找到得：
http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/
各國專利法的中英文版：
http://www.cnpat.com/law3.htm
其他相關連結。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/shiryou/hourei/kakokai/cikujyoukaisetu.htm
http://www.jpo.go.jp/index/houritsu_jouyaku.html
不過倒是找到了各國專利法的日文版。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/shiryou/s_sonota/fips/mokuji.htm
另外也找到一本很好的電子書，
「工業所有権法(産業財産権法)逐条解説〔第18版〕 2010.3.18」
裡面也有法條。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/shiryou/hourei/kakokai/pdf/cikujyoukaisetu/all.pdf
實體書市價應該要8800日圓吧，身邊有在book off買的中古書，版本比較舊，也要4000日圓。
日文特許法：
http://www.houko.com/00/01/S34/121.HTM
日本所有法條的英譯，應該在這裡找到得：
http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/
各國專利法的中英文版：
http://www.cnpat.com/law3.htm
其他相關連結。
http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/shiryou/hourei/kakokai/cikujyoukaisetu.htm
http://www.jpo.go.jp/index/houritsu_jouyaku.html
4/29/2011
進步性的答辯時，新內容會不會構成新事項？
於進步性的答辯時，在意見陳述書中增加實驗數據、或新的描述，顯示發明之功效，不會構成New Matter。
此外，為了舉證發明的功效，還能夠向美國專利局提出「暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action」，以“暫時地”停止審查以爭取時間，例如要追加實驗，取得証明本發明的優越性的資料。
「暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action」
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/search?q=%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97+%E5%BB%B6%E9%95%B7
日本去年七月的判例。
http://www.hanketsu.jiii.or.jp/hanketsu/jsp/hatumeisi/news/201104news.pdf
MPEP
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_716_02_f.htm#sect716.02f
716.02(f) Advantages Disclosed or Inherent
The totality of the record must be considered when determining whether a claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, evidence and arguments directed to advantages not disclosed in the specification cannot be disregarded. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the purported advantage of placement of a selective catalytic reduction catalyst in the bag retainer of an apparatus for controlling emissions was not disclosed in the specification, evidence and arguments rebutting the conclusion that such placement was a matter of "design choice" should have been considered as part of the totality of the record. "We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant's evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution." 66 F.3d at 299, 36 USPQ2d at 1095.). See also In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 928, 142 USPQ 158, 161 (CCPA 1964) (evidence that claimed compound minimized side effects of hypotensive activity must be considered because this undisclosed property would inherently flow from disclosed use as tranquilizer); Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103, 104 - 05 (Bd. App. 1981) (evidence relating to initially undisclosed relative toxicity of claimed pharmaceutical compound must be considered).
The specification need not disclose proportions or values as critical for applicants to present evidence showing the proportions or values to be critical. In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 607, 170 USPQ 213, 220 (CCPA 1971).
此外，為了舉證發明的功效，還能夠向美國專利局提出「暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action」，以“暫時地”停止審查以爭取時間，例如要追加實驗，取得証明本發明的優越性的資料。
「暫緩審查程序 Suspension of Action」
http://patentdic.blogspot.com/search?q=%E5%AF%A6%E9%A9%97+%E5%BB%B6%E9%95%B7
日本去年七月的判例。
http://www.hanketsu.jiii.or.jp/hanketsu/jsp/hatumeisi/news/201104news.pdf
解決課題及び解決手段が提示されているか否かは、『発明の効果』がどのようなものであるかと不即不離の関係があるといえる。そのような点を考慮すると、本願当初明細書において明らかにしていなかった『発明の効果』について、進歩性の判断において、出願の後に補充した実験結果等を参酌することは、出願人と第三者との公平を害する結果を招来するので、特段の事情のない限り許されないというべきである。
他方、進歩性の判断において、『発明の効果』を出願の後に補充した実験結果等を考慮することが許されないのは、上記の特許制度の趣旨、出願人と第三者との公平等の要請に基づくものであるから、当初明細書に、『発明の効果』に関し、何らの記載がない場合はさておき、当業者において『発明の効果』を認識できる程度の記載がある場合やこれを推論できる記載がある場合には、記載の範囲を超えない限り、出願の後に補充した実験結果等を参酌することは許されるというべきであり、許されるか否かは、前記公平の観点に立って判断すべきである。」
MPEP
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0700_716_02_f.htm#sect716.02f
716.02(f) Advantages Disclosed or Inherent
The totality of the record must be considered when determining whether a claimed invention would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, evidence and arguments directed to advantages not disclosed in the specification cannot be disregarded. In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 298-99, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Although the purported advantage of placement of a selective catalytic reduction catalyst in the bag retainer of an apparatus for controlling emissions was not disclosed in the specification, evidence and arguments rebutting the conclusion that such placement was a matter of "design choice" should have been considered as part of the totality of the record. "We have found no cases supporting the position that a patent applicant's evidence or arguments traversing a § 103 rejection must be contained within the specification. There is no logical support for such a proposition as well, given that obviousness is determined by the totality of the record including, in some instances most significantly, the evidence and arguments proffered during the give-and-take of ex parte patent prosecution." 66 F.3d at 299, 36 USPQ2d at 1095.). See also In re Zenitz, 333 F.2d 924, 928, 142 USPQ 158, 161 (CCPA 1964) (evidence that claimed compound minimized side effects of hypotensive activity must be considered because this undisclosed property would inherently flow from disclosed use as tranquilizer); Ex parte Sasajima, 212 USPQ 103, 104 - 05 (Bd. App. 1981) (evidence relating to initially undisclosed relative toxicity of claimed pharmaceutical compound must be considered).
The specification need not disclose proportions or values as critical for applicants to present evidence showing the proportions or values to be critical. In re Saunders, 444 F.2d 599, 607, 170 USPQ 213, 220 (CCPA 1971).
1/03/2011
"by others" 和 "by another" 都應該解釋成 "by a different inventive entity"
"by others" 和 "by another" 都應該解釋成 "by a different inventive entity"
不過，這個問題我也困擾很久，不太明白為啥法條上要用兩個不同的字，一般而言，如法條、判決等法律文件中，不同的用字要用不同的方式解釋，而這兩個字卻應該是要用相同的方式解釋。
102(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent;
102(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language;
MPEP 2132 (III)
III. "BY OTHERS"
"Others" Means Any Combination of Authors or Inventors Different Than the Inventive Entity
The term "others" in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be "by others." This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge and use. Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) "would negate the one year [grace] period afforded under § 102(b)." In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).
MPEP 2136.04
IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE INVENTIVE ENTITY, THE REFERENCE IS "BY ANOTHER"
"Another" means other than applicants, In re Land, 368 F.2d 866, 151 USPQ 621 (CCPA 1966), in other words, a different inventive entity. The inventive entity is different if not all inventors are the same. The fact that the application and reference have one or more inventors in common is immaterial. Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board found that the patent was "by another" and thus could be used in a 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103 rejection of the application.).
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/2771
Froggy
102(a)有強調public known or used，因此需要有複數的others。102(e)強調的是有一個他人先申請，所以只要another。雖然法條上如此定義，但是申請實務上，應該是一樣的，所以MPEP對another與others的解讀，應該是完全相同。
不過，這個問題我也困擾很久，不太明白為啥法條上要用兩個不同的字，一般而言，如法條、判決等法律文件中，不同的用字要用不同的方式解釋，而這兩個字卻應該是要用相同的方式解釋。
102(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent;
102(e) the invention was described in - (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for the purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language;
MPEP 2132 (III)
III. "BY OTHERS"
"Others" Means Any Combination of Authors or Inventors Different Than the Inventive Entity
The term "others" in 35 U.S.C. 102(a) refers to any entity which is different from the inventive entity. The entity need only differ by one person to be "by others." This holds true for all types of references eligible as prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) including publications as well as public knowledge and use. Any other interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a) "would negate the one year [grace] period afforded under § 102(b)." In re Katz, 687 F.2d 450, 215 USPQ 14 (CCPA 1982).
MPEP 2136.04
IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE INVENTIVE ENTITY, THE REFERENCE IS "BY ANOTHER"
"Another" means other than applicants, In re Land, 368 F.2d 866, 151 USPQ 621 (CCPA 1966), in other words, a different inventive entity. The inventive entity is different if not all inventors are the same. The fact that the application and reference have one or more inventors in common is immaterial. Ex parte DesOrmeaux, 25 USPQ2d 2040 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1992) (The examiner made a 35 U.S.C. 102(e) rejection based on an issued U.S. patent to three inventors. The rejected application was a continuation-in-part of the issued parent with an extra inventor. The Board found that the patent was "by another" and thus could be used in a 35 U.S.C. 102(e)/103 rejection of the application.).
http://www.patent-tutorial.net/content/forum/2771
Froggy
102(a)有強調public known or used，因此需要有複數的others。102(e)強調的是有一個他人先申請，所以只要another。雖然法條上如此定義，但是申請實務上，應該是一樣的，所以MPEP對another與others的解讀，應該是完全相同。
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)