所謂內部證據, 就是發明人自行於專利說明書中定義名詞, 除了因為需要而自己創造的名詞外, 應用到習知已用過的名詞, 都可自行成為一個"辭彙編撰者(LEXICOGRAPHER)"
可參考MPEP 2111.01, 其規範權利範圍撰寫時的"理想"原則, 雖是理想, 卻也是一個撰寫者應要知道的, 這樣可以推論, 每個專利, 或說發明, 其實都是由"習知技術"的組合形成的, 除了少數的開創性的發明, 其實其中各元件"個別來看"應"不是新的", 而是組合起來產生具有專利性的發明
THE WORDS OF A CLAIM MUST BE GIVEN THEIR "PLAIN MEANING" UNLESS SUCH MEANING IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SPECIFICATION
除非意思與說明書內容不符, 要不然申請專利範圍應給與清楚明白的意思（解釋申請專利範圍時, 應該由當中的意思解讀出清楚的意思, 這與名詞的命名有很大的關係）Although claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless the plain meaning is inconsistent with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (Ordinary, simple English words whose meaning is clear and unquestionable, absent any indication that their use in a particular context changes their meaning, are construed to mean exactly what they say.
雖然申請專利範圍的解讀（如侵權鑑定）會引用說明書內容來解釋, 但是在"審查"時卻是僅以申請專利範圍的文字的廣度來解釋, 也就是, 侵權鑑定從"嚴", 專利審查從"寬"IT IS IMPROPER TO IMPORT CLAIM LIMITATIONS FROM THE SPECIFICATION
由說明書引入限制申請專利範圍的限制是不適當的（申請專利範圍應該由其中字義就可以了解範圍, 應無需由說明書內容來解釋）
"Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(discussing recent cases wherein the court expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment);< E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("Interpretation of descriptive statements in a patent's written description is a difficult task, as an inherent tension exists as to whether a statement is a clear lexicographic definition or a description of a preferred embodiment. The problem is to interpret claims 'in view of the specification' without unnecessarily importing limitations from the specification into the claims."); Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371, 65 USPQ2d 1865, 1869-70 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (Although the specification discussed only a single embodiment, the court held that it was improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims where, as a matter of logic or grammar, the language of the method claims did not impose a specific order on the performance of the method steps, and the specification did not directly or implicitly require a particular order). See also paragraph *>IV.<, below. **>When<>35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means or step plus function language)**, the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- § 2186).
通常, 權利範圍的解讀是比說明書內容來的寬的
判例中顯示, 如果說明書僅揭露一個實施例, 法院可能會將此一僅有的實施例讀進權利範圍, 但是稍後的判例卻指出這是不恰當的, 比如實施例揭露一個方法流程, 但權利範圍中步驟的解釋卻不能限定於實施例的順序
（實務上, 中國專利局對此卻是異常嚴格, 如果只有一個實施例, 通常在審查階段就會被要求作為範圍的"必要特徵", 而要求限制）"PLAIN MEANING" REFERS TO THE ORDINARY AND CUSTOMARY MEAN-ING GIVEN TO THE TERM BY THOSE OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART
所謂的"plain meaning"是指該發明所屬領域的技術人員的一般認知或是慣用的意義（申請專利範圍中的意義, 應由該發明所屬技術領域的人可以用一般知識去理解, 而無需過度解釋, 或是引用說明書內容來看）
"The ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention. "In the absence of an express intent to impart a novel meaning to the claim terms, the words are presumed to take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art."). In construing claim terms, the general meanings gleaned from reference sources, such as dictionaries, must always be compared against the use of the terms in context, and the intrinsic record must always be consulted to identify which of the different possible dictionary meanings is most consistent with the use of the words by the inventor.
內部證據, 或字典, 用來解釋專利範圍APPLICANT MAY BE OWN LEXICOGRAPHER
專利權人（發明人）可為自己的辭彙編撰者（撰寫說明書時, 可依需要自行定義新的名詞）
An applicant is entitled to be his or her own lexicographer and may rebut the presumption that claim terms are to be given their ordinary and customary meaning by clearly setting forth a definition of the term that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning(s). See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1674 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (inventor may define specific terms used to describe invention, but must do so "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" and, if done, must "'set out his uncommon definition in some manner within the patent disclosure' so as to give one of ordinary skill in the art notice of the change" in meaning) (quoting Intellicall, Inc. v. Phonometrics, Inc., 952 F.2d 1384, 1387-88, 21 USPQ2d 1383, 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). Where an explicit definition is provided by the applicant for a term, that definition will control interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. Toro Co. v. White Consolidated Industries Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1301, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1069 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (meaning of words used in a claim is not construed in a "lexicographic vacuum, but in the context of the specification and drawings"). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants Inc. v. Medzam Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477, 45 USPQ2d 1429, 1432 (Fed. Cir. 1998). See also Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999) and MPEP § 2173.05(a). The specification should also be relied on for more than just explicit lexicography or clear disavowal of claim scope to determine the meaning of a claim term when applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer; the meaning of a particular claim term may be defined by implication, that is, according to the usage of the term in >the<>Phillips v. AWH Corp., *>415 F.3d 1303<, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc); and Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1583, 39 USPQ2d 1573, 1577 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Compare Merck & Co., Inc., v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 395 F.3d 1364, 1370, 73 USPQ2d 1641, 1646 (Fed. Cir. 2005), where the court held that patentee failed to redefine the ordinary meaning of "about" to mean "exactly" in clear enough terms to justify the counterintuitive definition of "about." ("When a patentee acts as his own lexicographer in redefining the meaning of particular claim terms away from their ordinary meaning, he must clearly express that intent in the written description.").
權利範圍允許有自行定義的內容（不同於慣用語）, 但是說明書與權利範圍本身語言要有足夠清楚的定義
自己就無聊用關鍵字在uspto資料庫找發明名稱有"online"的核准專利, 目前共有624件核准專利名稱有online的, 但是看看專利號碼, "7"開頭的, 也就是近2-3年的專利, 也可說是網路盛行的這幾年, 就佔了278件, 大約瀏覽了一下這些專利名稱, 確實都與網路脫不了關係, 如果回朔到第一個發明名稱有"online"的核准專利, 則是1982年IBM申請的第4,483,001號專利, 若沒錯的話, 當時應該不會有什麼跟網路有關的專利才對, (1983年才有TCP/IP的概念), 看了一下內容, 這篇專利是在講電腦資料儲存排列在記憶體的技術
再舉一例, "google"一詞已經是字典上有的字了, 意思是"網路上搜尋"的動詞, 但本來只是個"拼錯"的字, 但現在, 或許不用在專利文件上解釋, 即為一般知識的人可以知道
聽說Google的命名也是一個錯誤, 本來那個搜尋引擎應該是稱為"Goggle", 是"眼睛轉動"的意思, 若是用於搜尋器來說, 也算合理, 現在名聲大到變成字典字, 也就是"外部證據"常用的證據, 在撰寫說明書或是權利範圍時應可直接用於作為網路搜尋的動詞, 不必多做解釋
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言