引用美國專利法第112條第二段的核駁理由與範例

筆記

大家都曉得專利取得的要件之一是揭露義務，揭露內容的要求如美國專利第112條第一段的規定：說明書應完整、清楚、簡潔、正確用語，使得相關領域的人可以據以實施；112條第二段則規定請求項應明確揭露出發明的範疇。更要求申請人應主動揭露最佳實施例。
可參考部落格內容：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2010/10/blog-post.html

在撰寫權利範圍時，通常會對照已知的前案進行迴避，最好的方式之一就是，先寫出對照發明人所描述的發明的請求範圍，之後比對已知前案，將權利範圍的元件刪減到至少對於已知前案已具備新穎性，並且元件組合為可實施的發明之必要特徵。但審查時，審查委員仍會判斷權利範圍的元件組合是否遺漏了實施該發明之必要元件。

在審查的角度，審查委員如何應用第112條第二段的撰寫規定來核駁權利範圍？(大概都是抄自以下內容）
可參閱：MPEP Section 706.03(d), Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. 112, Second Paragraph

根據此段描述的範例一：
Claim ### rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as failing to set forth the subject matter which applicant(s) regard as their invention. Evidence that claim ### fail(s) to correspond in scope with that which applicant(s) regard as the invention can be found in the reply filed .... In that paper, applicant has stated [4], and this statement indicates that the invention is different from what is defined in the claim(s) because ....
違反112第二段的核駁理由為認為權利範圍並未完整描述申請人所認為的發明，也就是認為權利範圍所載的發明與申請人所述的不同。

範例二：
Claim ### rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
違反112第二段的核駁理由為認為權利範圍所載發明並無特別指出申請人所認為的發明標的。
以上兩個範例實務上可能是Claim內載有未被說明書支持的技術內容。

範例三：
The term "[1]" in claim [2] is used by the claim to mean "[3]", while the accepted meaning is "[4]." The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term.
在權利範圍中的用語並無清楚定義在說明書中。這通常是有專利說明書撰寫人自行定義的名詞，但卻未有明確的定義所致。

範例四：
The term "[1]" in claim ### is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term "[1]" is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
權利範圍所載的用語（term）為相對性用語，會使得權利範圍不明確，用語在權利範圍內並未被定義，說明書也未提供必要尺度的標準而使得本發明通常技術人員合理地瞭解技術。
實務上可是因為記載了不可度量的比較用語，高、低、長、短等，或是某個不明確範圍中的數值，都可能造成不明確的範圍。

範例五：
Claim ### recites the limitation [2] in [3]. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
違反112第二段的核駁理由為權利範圍中的限制條件缺乏前述基礎。可能為冠詞的應用不當。


範例六：
Claim ### provides for the use of [2], but, since the claim does not set forth any steps involved in the method/process, it is unclear what method/process applicant is intending to encompass. A claim is indefinite where it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Claim ### is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed recitation of a use, without setting forth any steps involved in the process, results in an improper definition of a process, i.e., results in a claim which is not a proper process claim under 35 U.S.C. 101. See for example Ex parte Dunki, 153 USPQ 678 (Bd. App. 1967) and Clinical Products, Ltd. v. Brenner, 255 F. Supp. 131, 149 USPQ 475 (D.D.C. 1966).
權利範圍記載了使用某個東西的用途，是一種用途發明，但是，權利範圍並無指出任何方法步驟，而造成不清楚的範疇。此類不清楚的範圍也可能伴隨著不符101的核駁理由，原因是有不明確的流程定義。

範例七：
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
權利範圍的描述方式不符美國專利實務（法規），產生了外文翻譯為英文的錯誤。若翻譯很糟，讓審查委員看不懂，可能會遭此核駁。

範例八：
Regarding claim [1], the phrase "for example" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
權利範圍中使用了「例如」的不明確用語。

範例九：
Regarding claim [1], the phrase "or the like" renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or the like"), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
權利範圍使用了「等等（or the like）」等不明確的描述，使得權利範圍中的元件有不確定的可能。

範例十：
Regarding claim [1], the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
權利範圍中使用「such as」的不明確用語，使得範圍限制不明。

範例十一：
Regarding claim [1], the word "means" is preceded by the word(s) "[2]" in an attempt to use a "means" clause to recite a claim element as a means for performing a specified function. However, since no function is specified by the word(s) preceding "means," it is impossible to determine the equivalents of the element, as required by 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. See Ex parte Klumb, 159 USPQ 694 (Bd. App. 1967).
權利範圍中使用「手段用語（means）」，卻未用於描述特定功能，產生不明確。

範例十二：
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are: [2]
權利範圍中缺漏了必要的步驟，造成步驟之間有缺口（gap）。這發生在方法範圍中，其中缺少實施該發明之必要步驟。

範例十三：
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: [2]
發明為權利範圍之元件組合，但缺少實施該發明之必要元件。

範例十四：
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: [2]
元件之間缺乏結構上的關聯，造成結構連結的缺口。
（上述範例十二、十三、十四中提到專利範圍缺少必要特徵的情況，此可參考MPEP 2172.01 Unclaimed Essential Matter。權利範圍中缺少實施該發明的必要元件（包括關聯、步驟），產生missing element(s), step(s), relationship(s)的問題。）

範例十五：
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite and functional or operational language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
結構專利之權利範圍充滿了不明確與功能性用語，並以一句話原則描述。

範例十六：
Claim [1] rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
權利範圍的語言未指出何為納入的內容，或是排除的內容。此類描述應該是未寫過專利的人用自己的描述來說明產品，造成未揭露任何元件、關聯或是步驟的權利範圍。

Ron