日文說明書中利用照片作為圖示的注意事項

http://www.jpo.go.jp/cgi/link.cgi?url=/toiawase/faq/yokuar10.htm

來源日本特許廳。

(1)図面は、原則として製図法に従って、黒色で、鮮明にかつ容易に消すことができないように描くものとし、着色してはなりません。

1、圖示原則上應依據製圖法進行繪圖，且應為黑色、鮮明、不容易消失，且不可著上顏色的圖。

4．図面として採用できる写真

(1)製図法に従って作図することが極めて困難なものであって、顕微鏡写真、Ｘ線写真、結晶構造、金属組織、繊維の形状、粒子構造、生物の形態、オシロ波形、電気泳動、セラミック材料の組織、コロイド、薄膜、クロマトグラフ、基板上に形成された微細なパターン、ディスプレー上に表示した中間調画像及びガラスの切断面の状態を表している写真は、図面として採用されます。

ただし、写真は明瞭なものであり、かつ、公報等に鮮明に掲載することができるものに限られます。

(2)図面として採用される写真を添付するときは、明細書の「【図面の簡単な説明】」の欄に何を表した顕微鏡写真であるのように、写真であることをを明記して下さい。

(3)色彩写真及び青写真は、正式の図面としては認められませんが、参考写真又は参考図面として提出することができます。この場合、これらの参考写真及び参考図面は正式の図と同一の用紙に記載してはなりません。また、参考写真又は参考図面の説明は、明細書の「【図面の簡単な説明】」の欄に記載してはなりません。参考写真及び参考図面の説明が必要な場合は、当該参考写真又は参考図面の余白に記載して下さい。

4、能夠採用照片作為圖示

（1） 利用製圖法非常難以製圖的圖示，例如「顕微鏡写真、Ｘ線写真、結晶構造、金属組織、繊維の形状、粒子構造、生物の形態、オシロ波形、電気泳動、セラミック材料の組織、コロイド、薄膜、クロマトグラフ、基板上に形成された微細なパターン、ディスプレー上に表示した中間調画像及びガラスの切断面の状態を表している」等的照片，係能夠被採用作為圖示。但是，僅限於清楚的且係能夠被明確地揭示於公報等中的照片。

（2） 添付照片作為圖示時，應於說明書之「圖示的簡單說明」欄位中，明記例如“顯示何種物的顯微鏡照片”的照片說明。

（3） 用彩色照片及藍色照片作為正式的圖示是不被允准的，但是可以用參考照片或參考圖示的方式提出。此種情況時，該等參考照片及參考圖示，不可以與正式的圖示同時被揭示於相同的紙張上。而且，參考照片及參考圖示的說明，亦不可以記載於說明書之「圖示的簡單說明」欄位中。若必要記載參考照片及參考圖示的說明時，請於該參考照片及參考圖示的空白處加以記載。

英說定型用語

United States Patent 6,624,816

The invention further relates to machine readable media on which are stored (1) the layout parameters of the present invention and/or (2) program instructions for using the present invention in performing operations on a computer. Such media includes by way of example magnetic tape, magnetic disks, optically readable media such as CD ROMs and semiconductor memory such as PCMCIA cards. The medium may also take the form of a portable item such as a small disk, diskette or cassette. The medium may also take the form of a larger or immobile item such as a hard disk drive or a computer RAM.

英說定型用語

United States Patent 7,346,496

An embodiment of the invention may include functionality that may be implemented as software executed by a processor, hardware circuits or structures, or a combination of both. The processor may be a general-purpose or dedicated processor, such as a processor from the family of processors made by Intel Corporation, Motorola Incorporated, Sun Microsystems Incorporated and others. The software may comprise programming logic, instructions or data to implement certain functionality for an embodiment of the invention. The software may be stored in a medium accessible by a machine or computer-readable medium, such as read-only memory (ROM), random-access memory (RAM), magnetic disk (e.g., floppy disk and hard drive), optical disk (e.g., CD-ROM) or any other data storage medium. In one embodiment of the invention, the media may store programming instructions in a compressed and/or encrypted format, as well as instructions that may have to be compiled or installed by an installer before being executed by the processor. Alternatively, an embodiment of the invention may be implemented as specific hardware components that contain hard-wired logic for performing the recited functionality, or by any combination of programmed general-purpose computer components and custom hardware components.

It is worthy to note that any reference in the specification to "one embodiment" or "an embodiment" means that a particular feature, structure, or characteristic described in connection with the embodiment is included in at least one embodiment of the invention. The appearances of the phrase "in one embodiment" in various places in the specification are not necessarily all referring to the same embodiment.

英說定型用語

United States Patent 5,517,651

命名法

NOTION AND NOMENCLATURE

The detailed descriptions which follow are presented largely in terms of algorithms and symbolic representations of operations within a computer system. These algorithmic descriptions and representations are the means used by those skilled in the data processing arts to convey the substance of their work most effectively to others skilled in the art.

Generally, and within the context of this application, an algorithm is conceived to be a self-consistent sequence of steps leading to a desired result. These steps are those requiring physical manipulations of physical quantities. Usually, though not necessarily, these quantities take the form of electrical or magnetic signals capable of being stored, transferred, combined, compared, and otherwise manipulated. It proves convenient at times, principally for reasons of common usage, to refer to these signals as bits, values, elements, symbols, characters, terms, numbers, or the like. It should be borne in mind, however, that all of these and similar terms are to be associated with the appropriate physical quantities and are merely convenient labels applied to these quantities.

Further, the manipulations performed are often referred to in terms, such as adding or comparing, which are commonly associated with mental operations performed by a human operator. No such capability of a human operator is necessary, or desirable in most cases, in any of the operations described herein which form part of the present invention; the operations are machine operations. Useful machines for performing the operations of the present invention include general purpose digital computers or other similar devices. In all cases, a distinction is maintained between the method operations in operating a computer and the method of computation itself. The present invention relates to method steps for operating a computer in processing electrical or other physical signals (e.g., mechanical, chemical) to generate other desired physical signals.

The present invention also relates to apparatus for performing these operations. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general purpose computer as selectively activated or reconfigured by a computer program stored in the computer. The algorithms presented herein are not inherently related to a particular computer or other apparatus. In particular, various general purpose machines may be used with programs written in accordance with the teachings herein, or it may prove more convenient to construct more specialized apparatus to perform the required method steps. The required structure for a variety of these machines will appear from the description given below.


包含變化型
In the foregoing specification, the invention has been described with reference to specific exemplary embodiments thereof. However, it will be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the following claims. Accordingly, the specification and drawings are to be regarded in an illustrative sense rather than a restrictive sense.

英說定型用語

US7227802

It will be understood that, although the terms first, second, etc. may be used herein to describe various elements, these elements should not be limited by these terms. These terms are only used to distinguish one element from another. For example, a first element could be termed a second element, and, similarly, a second element could be termed a first element, without departing from the scope of the present invention. As used herein, the term "and/or" includes any and all combinations of one or more of the associated listed items. It will be understood that when an element is referred to as being "connected" or "coupled" to another element, it can be directly connected or coupled to the other element or intervening elements may be present. In contrast, when an element is referred to as being "directly connected" or "directly coupled" to another element, there are no intervening elements present. Other words used to describe the relationship between elements should be interpreted in a similar fashion (i.e., "between" versus "directly between", "adjacent" versus "directly adjacent", etc.). The terminology used herein is for the purpose of describing particular embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the invention. As used herein, the singular forms "a", "an" and "the" are intended to include the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It will be further understood that the terms "comprises", "comprising,", "includes" and/or "including", when used herein, specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps, operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof. Unless otherwise defined, all terms (including technical and scientific terms) used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which this invention belongs. It will be further understood that terms, such as those defined in commonly used dictionaries, should be interpreted as having a meaning that is consistent with their meaning in the context of the relevant art and will not be interpreted in an idealized or overly formal sense unless expressly so defined herein.

收集一些英文說明書的定型用語，不曉得加入這些句子是否真的有什麼特別的意義，也許在某些情況下，這些句子應該會發揮什麼樣的功用吧。

混合類別型請求項

混合類別型請求項   Mixed Claim Types

撰寫請求項時，應留意於此請求項中是否同時記載了“裝置限制條件”及“方法限制條件”，其有可能會被視為不明確。

Manual of Patent Examination Procedure. § 2173.05(p)(II) (1999) ("A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.")

MPEP § 2173.05(p)(II) 記載有：單一的請求項同時請求“裝置”及“使用該裝置的方法步驟”，係為不明確，不符合 35 U.S.C. 112 第二段規定。

The November 2005 IPXL Holdings v. Amazon CAFC ruling found claim 25 in the notorious Amazon 1-click patent (6,149,055) indefinite.

25. The system of claim 2 [including an input means] wherein the predicted transaction information comprises both a transaction type and transaction parameters associated with that transaction type, and the user uses the input means to either change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction type and transaction parameters.

The problem was that the claim could have been read either as a system claim or method claim.

Thus, it is unclear whether infringement of claim 25 occurs when one creates a system that allows the user to change the predicted transaction information or accept the displayed transaction, or whether infringement occurs when the user actually uses the input means to change transaction information or uses the input means to accept a displayed transaction.

上述請求項的問題為，此請求項可以被解讀成為系統請求項、或是方法請求項。因此，是在有人創造一個能夠允許使用者改變預測的交易資訊或接受所顯示之交易的系統時，發生侵權請求項25行為；還是當使用者實際使用輸入裝置改變預測的交易資訊或使用輸入裝置接受所顯示之交易時，發生侵權請求項25行為？關於此點不明確。

心得：

〉●從文言上來看是可以解譯成「當使用者實際使用輸入裝置改變預測的交易資訊或使用輸入裝置接受所顯示之交易時的系統」，從這一點來看，其實一點也不會不明確。不知為何這種解譯方式不被接受？

〉●想要使用“功能限制條件”來限定“裝置”的請求項時應小心並再確認這樣的撰寫方式，是否會被解讀為混合類別型請求項。

〉●似乎僅需將原請求項修改成「the system allows the user to use the input means to」，這樣就不會被視為不明確了，差幾個字就差那麼多難以想像。建議以後撰寫請求項時，多多使用“用以”、“藉以使”等用語。

〉●不過，上述的情況和 MPEP 2106所記載的內容，兩者間滿容易混淆

MPEP 2106 

For example, a claimed invention may be a combination of devices that appear to be directed to a machine and one or more steps of the functions performed by the machine. Such instances of mixed attributes, although potentially confusing as to which category of patentable subject matter the claim belongs, does not affect the analysis to be performed by USPTO personnel. Note that an apparatus claim with process steps is not classified as a "hybrid" claim; instead, it is simply an apparatus claim including functional limitations. See, e.g., R.A.C.C. Indus. v. Stun-Tech, Inc., 178 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (unpublished).

應注意，具有方法步驟的裝置請求項，不被分類為混合類別型請求項，相反地，它僅是一種包含功能限制條件的裝置請求項。

心得：

〉●要分清楚此兩者間的界線，也許可以參考The Patent Prospector的意見。

The cutting edge for an non-statutory dual-matter claim is whether the claim could be reasonably read "either-or" - interpretable within two of the four categories of patentable subject matter: "process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter" (35 U.S.C. §101). Another viewpoint would be to answer the question: what is crucial, specifically novel, about the claim that merits its patentability? If the answer lies in a different claim type than the claim nominally is, the claim is invalid.

另一觀點為回答下述問題：使請求項維持其可專利性，什麼限制條件是重要的，尤其是針對新穎性而言？如果所得答案為此請求項落入了不同於它名目上的類別時，則此請求項無效。

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！

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.

說明書

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
03-1528

Bilstad v. Wakalopulos


This court then distinguished In re Smythe by explaining that the Board properly found that this particular field was unpredictable. "Unlike the circumstances In re Smythe presented, the instant facts present a case in which there is 'unpredictability in performance of certain species or subcombinations other than those specifically enumerated’’.

Thus, unpredictability in the particular field may warrant closer scrutiny of whether disclosure of a species is sufficient to describe a genus.
The distinction in these cases is based upon what would be reasonably conveyed to a person skilled in the art at the time of the original disclosure. If the difference between members of the group is such that the person skilled in the art would not readily discern that other members of the genus would perform similarly to the disclosed members, i.e., if the art is unpredictable, then disclosure of more species is necessary to adequately show possession of the entire genus.

如果說明書僅是揭示幾個下位概念的實施例，能不能請求上位概念的範圍，關鍵在於此領域是否屬於“可預期的”，而能不能預期的舉証責任，通常在於申請人。

【說明書】enablement requirement

05-1062

LIZARDTECH, INC., v. Earth Resource Mapping Ltd.

Although the specification would meet the requirements of section 112 with respect to a claim directed to that particular engine, it would not necessarily support a broad claim to every possible type of fuel-efficient engine, no matter how different in structure or operation from the inventor’s engine. The single embodiment would support such a generic claim only if the specification would “reasonably convey to a person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.

Thus, a patentee cannot always satisfy the requirements of section 112, in supporting expansive claim language, merely by clearly describing one embodiment of the thing claimed.

While it is true that an originally filed claim can provide the requisite written description to satisfy section 112

一個“enablement requirement”的判決

如果一份說明書僅揭示一種實施例，若要請求較廣的範圍時，必需是「the specification would “reasonably convey to a person skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.」

原本的請求項文字說明，是可以用來當作“written description”來滿足112條的“enablement requirement”。但本案的請求項21的文字說明並無法令該行業者了解“the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.”。

自己的想法：
為取得較大的權利範圍，請求項的文字通常較“廣泛”，因此要滿足該行業者了解“the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of filing.”會比較小，我覺得。所以，最好於說明書中提供較多的實施例，較能確保對發明的保護。