曾在此篇報導中提到在申請專利範圍內不定冠詞（a, an）的用法，原則是第一次出現的元件應使用「a, an」等不定冠詞。
（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/02/blog-post_19.html）
"非第一次記載的元件用不定冠詞時，會產生double inclusion的問題"
針對「double inclusion」，MPEP提出說明，避免濫用，並沒有甚麼規則提出"double inclusion"本身為不適合的，主要還是看請求項文字是否有產生不明確的問題；
實務上，"double inclusion"可能會重複定義相同的元件，如此確實會有不明確的核駁意見。
MPEP 2173.05(O) DOUBLE INCLUSION
There is no per se rule that “double inclusion” is improper in a claim. In re Kelly, 305 F.2d 909, 916, 134 USPQ 397, 402 (CCPA 1962) (“Automatic reliance upon a ‘rule against double inclusion’ will lead to as many unreasonable interpretations as will automatic reliance upon a ‘rule allowing double inclusion’. The governing consideration is not double inclusion, but rather is what is a reasonable construction of the language of the claims.”). Older cases, such as Ex parte White, 759 O.G. 783 (Bd. App. 1958) and Ex parte Clark, 174 USPQ 40 (Bd. App. 1971) should be applied with care, according to the facts of each case.
The facts in each case must be evaluated to determine whether or not the multiple inclusion of one or more elements in a claim gives rise to indefiniteness in that claim. The mere fact that a compound may be embraced by more than one member of a Markush group recited in the claim does not lead to any uncertainty as to the scope of that claim for either examination or infringement purposes. On the other hand, where a claim directed to a device can be read to include the same element twice, the claim may be indefinite. Ex parte Kristensen, 10 USPQ2d 1701 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989).
典型的「double inclusion」則是選擇式專利範圍的寫法，也就是Markush的選擇式/擇一表示法（alternative expression）。使用Markush語言界定專利範圍時，double inclusion本身不會是核駁對象，反之，每一種案子都應各自評估是否會有double/multiple inclusion所造成不明確的問題。
Markush案例討論：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2008/08/us1506316-markush.html
MPEP 2173.05(H) ALTERNATIVE LIMITATIONS（節錄）
Alternative expressions are permitted if they present no uncertainty or ambiguity with respect to the question of scope or clarity of the claims. A “Markush” claim recites a list of alternatively useable species. In re Harnisch, 631 F.2d 716, 719-20, 206 USPQ 300, 303-04 (CCPA 1980); Ex parte Markush, 1925 Dec. Comm’r Pat. 126, 127 (1924). A Markush claim is commonly formatted as: “selected from the group consisting of A, B, and C;” however, the phrase “Markush claim” means any claim that recites a list of alternatively useable species regardless of format.
...
Similarly, the double inclusion of an element by members of a Markush group is not, in itself, sufficient basis for objection to or rejection of claims. Rather, the facts in each case must be evaluated to determine whether or not the multiple inclusion of one or more elements in a claim renders that claim indefinite. The mere fact that a compound may be embraced by more than one member of a Markush group recited in the claim does not necessarily render the scope of the claim unclear. For example, the Markush group, “selected from the group consisting of amino, halogen, nitro, chloro and alkyl” should be acceptable even though “halogen” is generic to “chloro.”
補充：
在MPEP 2173.05(H)所節錄的段落中，使用Markush以選擇式描述的專利範圍，所選擇的選項原本認知是多種類似或同等級物品/物質的選擇，但此段提及，即便其中有上位與下位元件共存的選項，都仍為可接受的寫法。
For example, the Markush group, “selected from the group consisting of amino, halogen, nitro, chloro and alkyl” should be acceptable even though “halogen” is generic to “chloro.”
這部分並不容於中國專利審查的標準。如中國審查委員在此案例中表示「請求項3、7有上下位概念並列的問題」，也就是審查委員認為「靜態信息」、「動態信息」均可能成為「圖」、「文」的上位概念，不能並列於同一個選擇表示中。
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言