前言的效力

前言的效力

申請專利範圍中的前言部份（preamble）是否具有限制權利範圍的效力？
就審查而言，經驗是，美國審查委員幾乎都是跳過前言中所描述的內容或是元件，而直接針對權利範圍主體中各元件來進行比對！但對侵權鑑定而言，嚴格來說，所有描述於權利範圍中的文字皆會被作為列為限制條件，包括前言部份！

根據MPEP2111.02所描述，前言是否為限制權利範圍的條件是依據個案情況（case-by-case）而定，並沒有一定的檢驗方式，看來，是個案看審查委員或是法官的認定！

[原文]
MPEP 2111.02 EFFECT of Effect of Preamble

The determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim. Catalina Mktg. Int'l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See id. at 808-10, 62 USPQ2d at 1784-86 for a discussion of guideposts that have emerged from various decisions exploring the preamble's effect on claim scope, as well as a hypothetical example illustrating these principles.

有以下討論：
權利範圍前言表達整個權利範圍的含意，是否應該讀入權利範圍，就看它是否給予整個範圍生命（give life）、意義（meaning）與活力（vatality），這或許很抽象，但多少應該給了一些建議！

就案例而言，以下引用一個「a method of treating or preventing pernicious anemia in humans by administering a certain vitamin preparation to "a human in need thereof,"」前言描述（有關藉由管理維他命來治療或防止貧血的方法），法院認定此處描述到「人」，且整個範圍就是與人的貧血有關，顯示此處前言給予整個專利範圍「意義」，所以有效力！

另一案例，前言描述「An abrasive article」（研磨物），清楚表達整個專利範圍應有的內容，但法院認為，這段話表達權利範圍為一個研磨物，但其中內容「abrasive grains and a binder」的結合則並非一定是前言所述的研磨物。就此而言，前言部份是要定義出產出物的結構！

"[A] claim preamble has the import that the claim as a whole suggests for it." Bell Communications Research, Inc. v. Vitalink Communications Corp., 55 F.3d 615, 620, 34 USPQ2d 1816, 1820 (Fed. Cir. 1995). "If the claim preamble, when read in the context of the entire claim, recites limitations of the claim, or, if the claim preamble is 'necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality' to the claim, then the claim preamble should be construed as if in the balance of the claim." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165-66 (Fed. Cir. 1999).

See also Jansen v. Rexall Sundown, Inc., 342 F.3d 1329, 1333, 68 USPQ2d 1154, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
(In considering the effect of the preamble in a claim directed to a method of treating or preventing pernicious anemia in humans by administering a certain vitamin preparation to "a human in need thereof," the court held that the claims' recitation of a patient or a human "in need" gives life and meaning to the preamble's statement of purpose.).

Kropa v. Robie, 187 F.2d 150, 152, 88 USPQ 478, 481 (CCPA 1951)
(A preamble reciting "An abrasive article" was deemed essential to point out the invention defined by claims to an article comprising abrasive grains and a hardened binder and the process of making it. The court stated "it is only by that phrase that it can be known that the subject matter defined by the claims is comprised as an abrasive article. Every union of substances capable inter alia of use as abrasive grains and a binder is not an 'abrasive article.'" Therefore, the preamble served to further define the structure of the article produced.).

小結：就上而言，雖然前言並非一定對權利範圍產生限制，但是應該還是要表達出整個專利範圍的樣貌，應可能作為限制條件！

Ron