系爭專利案：US 6,155,625
(接續http://enpan.blogspot.com/2010/09/blog-post.html)
Claim 6:
6. In combination with a vehicle including a vehicle bed, the improvement of a storage system which includes:
a) an opening formed in the vehicle bed and including an opening rim;
b) a compartment with an interior;
c) said compartment being mounted on said bed with said compartment interior accessible through said opening;
d) a lid assembly including lid mounting means for mounting said lid in covering relation with respect to said opening;
e) a channel formed at the rim of said bed opening and including an inner flange;
f) a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange and engaging said lid in its closed position; and
g) a plurality of drain holes formed in said channel.
但在原始專利申請案（08/951,246）中的原貌是：
1. A storage system for a vehicle including a vehicle bed, which includes:
a) an opening formed in the vehicle bed and including an opening rim;
b) a compartment with an interior;
c) mounting means for mounting said compartment on said bed with said compartment interior accessible through said opening; and
d) a lid assembly including lid mounting means for mounting said lid in covering relation with respect to said opening.
7. The storage system according to Claim 1, which includes:
a) a channel formed at the rim of said bed opening and including an inner lip; and
b) a weathertight gasket mounted on said lip and engaging said lid in its closed position.
8. The storage system according to claim 7, which includes:
a) a plurality of drain holes formed in said channel.
在1999年的第一次OA中，審查委員分別組合US5,363,890、US4,733,898與US2,671,935，核駁Claims 1, 7，認為不具進步性，但認為若Claim 8改寫為獨立項，則為可核准範圍
CAFC整理了這幾個項次的權利範圍的關係：
Original Claim 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) Obvious
Original Claim 7 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) Obvious
Original Claim 8 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) Allowable
Felix提出第一次修正：
刪除Claim 1
刪除Claim 7
改寫Claim 7成為新的Claim 14
修改其他附屬範圍的依附關係（如Claim 8依附Claim 14）
14. (Claim 7 rewritten in independent form) A storage system for a vehicle including a vehicle bed, which includes:
a) an opening formed in the vehicle bed and including an opening rim;
b) a compartment with an interior;
c) said compartment being mounted on said bed with said compartment interior accessible through said opening;
d) a lid assembly including lid mounting means for mounting said lid in covering relation with respect to said opening;
e) a channel formed at the rim of said bed opening and including an inner flange; and
f) a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange and engaging said lid in its closed position.
不久之後，審查委員在發出第二次OA，審查委員再提出前次有的引證案US5,363,890與US5,172,519，認為Claim 14不具進步性，而Claim 8仍為可核准範圍
權利範圍現貌：
Original Claim 1 (a), (b), (c), (d) Cancelled
Original Claim 7 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) Rewritten as Claim 14
Claim 14 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) Obvious (Cooper '890/Cooper '519)
Amended Claim 8 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) Allowable if rewritten
Felix提出第二次修正：
刪除Claim 14
刪除Claim 8
改寫Claim 8為新增的Claim 16：
16. (Claim 8 rewritten in independent form) In combination with a vehicle including a vehicle bed, the improvement of a storage system which includes:
a) an opening formed in the vehicle bed and including an opening rim;
b) a compartment with an interior;
c) said compartment being mounted on said bed with said compartment interior accessible through said opening;
d) a lid assembly including lid mounting means for mounting said lid in covering relation with respect to said opening;
e) a channel formed at the rim of said bed opening and including an inner flange;
f) a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange and engaging said lid in its closed position; and
g) a plurality of drain holes formed in said channel.
之後，Claim 16確實被核准，並在授權專利中成為Claim 6
各權利範圍變化有：
Claim 14 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) Cancelled
Amended Claim 8 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) Rewritten as Claim 16
Claim 16 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) Allowed as Claim 6
地方法院階段：
在此訴訟中，Felix提出Honda的In-Bed Trunk侵害該專利，所有元件差不多一致，只有襯墊（gasket）的位置不同，辯論過程中，地方法院認為In-Bed Trunk為「mounted」，解釋為「securely affixed or fastened to」，而並非如系爭專利中安裝於凸緣而具有可移動的樣態（a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange and engaging said lid in its closed position.），如「engaging」，意思為「coming together and interlocking」，也就是，In-Bed Trunk並不具有安裝固定於凸緣的襯墊（a weathertight gasket mounted on said flange），不符合文義侵害的條件
均等論：
地方法院認為，Felix在答辯過程中，在「襯墊」的限制為核准專利的重要的限制條件，故不能主張均等擴張範圍（The district court rejected Felix's argument that the amendment adding the gasket limitation was tangential to patentability）
CAFC階段：
即使Felix爭辯系爭專利在蓋子蓋下時，襯墊相對於凸緣為不可移動的狀態，但CAFC認為已經錯誤解讀範圍了，故不予採納
因為
"mounted on said flange" and "engaging said lid in its closed position." 兩者的差異
所以不符文義侵害的要件
均等論：
根據Festo判例，均等論讓專利權人提出權利範圍中沒有揭露的非實質的改變，但不能透過無意義的改變來建立（"The doctrine of equivalents allows the patentee to claim those insubstantial alterations that were not captured in drafting the original patent claim but which could be created through trivial changes."），歷史禁反言使得專利權人因為在答辯中的限縮與修正而無法提出等效擴張的效力
CAFC認為，Felix在修正過程中，放棄了主要範圍Claim 1而將Claim 7改寫為另一新增獨立項，而非如審查委員建議可核准的Claim 8，Claim 14建立了歷史禁反言（Felix's decision in the first amendment to cancel original claim 1 and to rewrite original claim 7 in independent form as claim 14 gave rise to a presumption of surrender.），根據Festo判例，當專利權人回應核駁理由而做出範圍限制，這個動作將使得專利權人日後無法主張被原有Claim所涵蓋較廣的權利範圍，無法主張均等論（"When the patentee responds to the rejection by narrowing his claims, this prosecution history estops him from later arguing that the subject matter covered by the original, broader claim was nothing more than an equivalent."），Felix在第一次答辯過程的限縮並非是順著審查委員可核准的方面去限縮，造成歷史禁反言。
CAFC的結論是：
當專利權人刪除獨立項，並為了要獲准專利而改寫附屬項為另一新增獨立範圍，即使這個修改仍未被核准，仍建立了歷史禁反言
[原文]
We therefore hold that the presumption of prosecution history estoppel attaches when a patentee cancels an independent claim and rewrites a dependent claim in independent form for reasons related to patentability, even if the amendment alone does not succeed in placing the claim in condition for allowance.
最後，CAFC採用地方法院對mounted, engaging等的解釋，並認為Felix無法主張均等論，而判決Honda並未侵權
Ron
以上供寫作與答辯的參考
參考資料：CAFC判決
沒有留言:
張貼留言