進步性判決

The fallacy of this reasoning is that no one of the references suggests such a substitution, quite apart from the result which would be obtained thereby. Such piecemeal reconstruction of the prior art patents in the light of appellant's disclosure is contrary to the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 103.

The ever present question in cases within the ambit of 35 U.S.C. § 103 is whether the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of the prior art at the time the invention was made.

It is impermissible within the framework of section 103 to pick and choose from any one reference only so much of it as will support a given position, to the exclusion of other parts necessary to the full appreciation of what such reference fairly suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art.
從任一參考文獻中，挑出或選擇僅僅某一部分，單只因為此部分能支持某一特定立場，而排除讓熟悉此領域技藝者從此參考文獻之教示所能合理完整理解的其他重要的部分，這是在103段落的架構下所不容許的。

知識產權是一種手段，而不是一種道德

 

常常聽人提及要尊重知識產權，用一種道德的口氣來要求人尊守，也許在試著閱讀New York time 2002年出版一篇文章後，會另人有不相同的想法。

New Economy; The intellectual property debate takes a page from 19th-century America

By STEVE LOHR

Published: October 14, 2002

IN the 19th century, the United States was both a rapidly industrializing nation and -- as Charles Dickens, among others, knew all too well -- a bold pirate of intellectual property.

But these days, when it comes to dealing with developing nations around the world, the United States seems to be ignoring its own swashbuckling heritage. 

The global debate over intellectual property rights -- patents, copyrights and trademarks -- is focused mainly on forward-looking industries like computer software, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. But Americans can look back to this nation's 19th-century experience in book publishing, for example, to understand the developing world's viewpoint.

Back then, American law offered copyright protection -- but only to citizens and residents of the United States. The works of English authors were copied with abandon and sold cheap to an American public hungry for books. This so irritated Mr. Dickens -- whose ''Christmas Carol'' sold for 6 cents a copy in America, versus $2.50 in England -- that he toured the United States in 1842, urging the adoption of international copyright protection as being in the long-term interest of American authors and publishers.

美國也曾經是個明目張膽的知識產權海盜國家，於1842年小說家狄更斯的著作“小氣財神”，在美國的盜版書僅賣6美分，而在英國原版書卻要2.5美元。而現在卻以自己的國力要求世界各國制訂修改知識產權的相關法令。

Indeed, the economies that were shining success stories of development, from the United States in the 19th century to Japan and its East Asian neighbors like Taiwan and South Korea in the 20th, took off under systems of weak intellectual property protection. Technology transfer came easily and inexpensively until domestic skills and local industries were advanced enough that stronger intellectual property protections became a matter of self-interest.

【 2022/07/26 更新】

事實上，像十九世紀的美國到二十世紀的日本、及它的東亞鄰居臺灣及南韓，經濟能夠發展亮麗，是靠軟弱無力的知識產權保護所促成的。技術轉讓既容易又便宜，直到國內技能和當地產業足夠先進，以至於加強知識產權保護成為符合自身利益的問題時。

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”。

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。

【摘譯】說明書中的限制條件是否應讀進申請專利範圍

【摘譯】說明書中的限制條件是否應讀進申請專利範圍

RENISHAW PLC v MARPOSS SOCIETA' PER AZIONI, ET AL.

一個很難的句子，看了好久還是看不出所以然，若有知道粗體字真正意思的網友，麻煩指教，謝謝，會翻譯出來是參考一個日文句子的翻譯，說真的這一句我真的完全看不懂。

Thus, a party wishing to use statements in the written description to confine or otherwise affect a patent's scope must, at the very least, point to a term or terms in the claim with which to draw in those statements.

當事人想要用書面記載中的陳述，來限制申請專利範圍；或者不然，而是想要用來影響申請專利範圍，則必須至少指出：申請專利範圍中的用語、及導出其定義的說明，此兩者間的關係。

PS：這是一個很重要的判例，我覺得。主要是探討是不是應將說明書中的限制條件，讀進申請專利範圍來限制權利範圍的情形。

其他參考連結。


【2011年11月27日更新】
關於「draw」一詞
Clemens Alexandrinus used the term to draw to Christianity philosophers who aspired after virtue. （來源）
With these simple steps students can draw the letters of their name, or can be assigned a mathematical term to draw themselves.（來源）


「with」，它是“及”“和”等意思。 “a term or terms in the claim” with（“及”） which （指term）to draw（繪製,描寫） in those statements. 原英文應可重新翻譯成如下：

當事人想要用書面記載中的陳述來限制申請專利範圍；或者不然而是想要用來影響申請專利範圍，則至少必須指出：申請專利範圍中的“用語“及“它於該些陳述中所描述的意思“。

【判例】判例注腳解譯

筆者google的時候不小心看到的一本書美國大衆傳播法：判例評析，內有判例中常出現注腳的解譯，這困擾筆者很久了，相信應該有很多人不知道吧！

“合衆國訴奧布萊恩（United States v．O’Brien）”一案在書中首次出現時的註腳爲“391 U．S．367， 88 S． Ct．1673，20 L． Ed Zd 672（1968）”。
其中：
＊“391U．S．367”意指《美國判例彙編》（United States Reports）第 391卷第 367頁（始）；
＊“88 S．Ct．1673”意指《最高法院判例彙編》（Supreme Court Reporter）第 88卷第1673頁（始）；
＊ “2O L．Ed. 2d 672”意指《律師版》（Lawyer’s Edition）第 2輯第 20卷第 672頁（始），
＊ “Zd”代表輯次（下同）；
＊ 最後括弧中的數位代表訴訟發生的年份。
《美國判例彙編》系由官方出版，後兩種則爲非官方出版物。

另外還有一些出處的縮寫，如“ Med.L．RPtr．”代表《媒介法判例彙編》（Media Law Reporter）；“F．2d”代表《聯邦判例第 2輯》。與此同時，本書在非由聯邦最高法院審理的案件名稱之後還會標明法院的名稱，如“5tb Cir．”意指“第五巡迴法院”；“N．D．Ala”意指“亞拉巴馬北區聯邦地方法院”。

在書中出現的各種法令的主要出處其含義如下：
“U．S．C”（United States Code）——《美國法典》；
“U．S．C． A”（United States Code Annotated）——《美國法典注釋》；
“C．F．R．”（ Code of Federal Regulations）——《聯邦法規彙編》。

標於法典名稱前的數位代表卷目，標於其盾的數位如“ 315（a）”則代表法律條文所在的節、條、款等。

----------------------------
這個問題
哈金也有討論過

1. 35 U.S.C, 其中 U.S.C 代表 United States Code, 而Code 35也就是Patent Act 專利法的部份.
2. 15 C.F.R, 其中 C.F.R 代表: Code of Federal Rules,而Code 15就是專利法施行細則囉.(應該是這樣吧?!)

美國專利審查委員在審查時，主要會考慮Patent Laws、Patent Rules、和MPEP（Manual of Patent Examination Procedures；專利審查基準）。除此之外，案利法在審查過程中有時也會被用到。

USC（United States Code）是美國的法律，是由眾議院與參議院投票制定，並由美國總統簽署執行。法律中每個 Title 皆有一對應的法律領域，Patent Laws 是規定在 Title 35 的部分。在法律制定後，有關的主管機關會將法律中細節的部分（例如程序的細節部分）制定在 CFR 中，而 Patent Rules 是由美國專利局訂定在 CFR 的 Title 37 的地方。

MPEP 是給審查委員和申請人的參考資料，內容包括審查委員在審查中所遵守的程序以及以及專利法規的詮釋與相關資訊。