用詞解析4 – Coupled 等
解析案例 - Bradford Co. v. Conteyor North America, Inc., 603 F.3d 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2010)
此案例議題除了專利用詞外，還有相同發明人在後提出後申請案的前後案衝突的議題。
案件資訊：
原告/專利權人/上訴人：Bradford Co.
被告/被上訴人：Conteyor North America, Inc.
系爭專利：
U.S. 5,725,119 (“the ’119 patent”)、U.S. Patents 6,230,916 (“the ’916 patent”)、6,540,096 (”the ’096 patent”).
緣起：
美國地方法院District Court for the Southern District of Ohio在簡易判決中認為對部分請求範圍被告侵權不成立，另認為其中'096案並非具有能主張較早申請日（優先權），對此判決Bradford Co.上訴CAFC。
兩件系爭專利為前後申請的同一家族，系爭專利6,540,096 (”the ’096 patent”)更是一些前申請案的延續案（分割案後的CIP...），先前申請案歷史可參閱cross-reference。
以系爭專利 6,540,096為例，關於一種具有自動門板的貨運櫃，其中具有貨墊（"dunnage"），結構設計讓這個貨櫃可以輕易地豎起以及重複利用在貨運上，甚至倒塌時還能輕易恢復。
1. A reusable and returnable container for holding product therein during shipment and then being returned for reuse, the container comprising:
a body having at least two opposing and moveable side structures, the side structures configured for being selectively moved into an erected position for shipment and moved into a collapsed position for reducing the size of the container for return;
a dunnage structure spanning between the side structures, the dunnage structure being operably coupled to the side structures for automatically moving, with the side structures, to an erected position for receiving product when the side structures are erected and moving to a collapsed position in the body when the side structures are collapsed so that the dunnage remains with the container when returned;
the dunnage structure having an open end facing at least one side structure of the body, the at least one side structure defining an open area which is in alignment with the dunnage structure open end for accessing the dunnage structure and transferring product into and out of the dunnage structure from a side of the container;
whereby a person may more efficiently and safely remove product from the container and the container and dunnage is readily reused.
相關專利用詞爭議就在請求項1中的「coupled to」，說明書與圖示的相關描述如下：
"the dunnage structure 30 is operably coupled to the side structures 14 a, 14 c for moving to a collapsed position within the body when the side structures are collapsed."
地方法院階段：
地方法院解釋專利範圍時，認為"coupled to"意思為"linked together, connected or joined"，即便加上副詞成為"operably coupled to"，意思還是一樣。根據這個解釋，地方法院在2007年作出'916與'096兩案侵權不成立的簡易判決。
"coupled to"如'916案圖1指出的1A的連接關係：
判決中，地方法院將"coupled to"解釋成各貨墊要「耦接」於各貨框、開放貨框或是邊框，而被告的貨墊卻可以連結到桿上或是軌道上，並非直接連接到貨框，因此判斷侵權不成立。
原告對於侵權不成立，以及另一無法主張最早申請案優先權日的議題提出上訴。
CAFC階段：
在爭辯後申請案'096是否能主張前申請案'119申請日的好處時，涉及前申請案是否揭露後申請案足夠的細節，但是專利權人在審查歷史中（當時尚未主張優先權以及以Terminal disclaimer取得專利權）明確表明'119並未教示'096的技術特徵（連接關係、貨櫃進出設計），這點產生的禁反言使之失去優先權主張的資格（not entitled）。CAFC同意地院決定，認為'096只能取得自己的申請日。
對於專利用詞"coupled to"，CAFC一開始認為"coupled to"解釋應該更廣一點，除了從說明書內容，還根據了在無效爭訟中的審查歷史，另有一參考就是「claim differentiation」，從附屬項反推獨立請求項的解釋範疇，證明系爭專利的"coupled to"可以及於不直接連接關係，如'096的Claim 10：
10. The container of claim 1 further comprising rails coupled to the side structures, the dunnage structure being coupled at its ends to the rails to span between the rails.
可參考本部落格文章：http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/10/112d.html（請求項差異化原則）
我喜歡CAFC的解釋：
"Similarly, the use of words such as “operably” and “movably” in the claims suggests that the dunnage structure is not fused to the frame, but rather attached flexibly allowing for intermediate parts between the frame and the dunnage structure such that the dunnage is operable or movable. In light of such clear disclosure in the patent, the term “coupled to” is entitled to a broader scope than the district court allowed."
最後，CAFC根據以上分析，認為"coupled to"應有更廣的解釋範圍（這回"operably"有點用處）。本案發回重審。
補充：
本案還有一議題是，原告專利的發明人在原始母案U.S. 5,725,119之後另提新案（原本並未聲明任何關聯），在審查過程被認為不具新穎性，理由是'119這案已經完全揭露其中技術內容，專利權人於是主張'119案為其專利家族成員的較早專利，之後根據審查委員建議提出終權聲明（terminal disclaimer）而取得系爭專利'096（判決文提到過程其實還是有多次往來爭議）。
到了法院，這部分頗為有趣，因為在審查歷史中，專利權人曾經明確地表示前申請案'119案並未教示後申請案'096中裝載貨櫃的一些特徵，使得之後想要主張優先權時受到阻攔，法院聰明地找到這個矛盾，認為'096不能主張'119案的申請日的優勢，這個影響成為限制後申請案'096不能主張到'119案的連接關係，也間接使得侵權不成立。
my two cents:
一般撰寫使用"coupled to"就是希望解釋範圍不要僅限制在"直接連接"，雖之前的討論也討論到"connected to"也沒有一定限制到"直接連接"，但此案中地方法院顯然過度限縮了"coupled to"的解釋空間，但其中卻依據圖式很明確地表示這個"直接連接到貨框"的示意圖，這確實可能會影響法院見解，雖CAFC算是平反這個解釋，但是...還是十分曲折、不舒服。
"A coupled to B"除了有直接連接的意思外，更可簡單解釋為元件A經由一個"中間物"連接到元件B："A" -- "中間物" -- "B"。
“Similarly, the use of words such as “operably” and “movably” in the claims suggests that the dunnage structure is not fused to the frame, but rather attached flexibly allowing for intermediate parts between the frame and the dunnage structure such that the dunnage is operable or movable. In light of such clear disclosure in the patent, the term “coupled to” is entitled to a broader scope than the district court allowed.”
"A coupled to B"除了有直接連接的意思外，更可簡單解釋為元件A經由一個"中間物"連接到元件B："A" -- "中間物" -- "B"。
“Similarly, the use of words such as “operably” and “movably” in the claims suggests that the dunnage structure is not fused to the frame, but rather attached flexibly allowing for intermediate parts between the frame and the dunnage structure such that the dunnage is operable or movable. In light of such clear disclosure in the patent, the term “coupled to” is entitled to a broader scope than the district court allowed.”
「附屬項」有時也擔負一些較上位請求項或獨立項解釋空間的責任，這有關請求項差異化的議題。
另，後申請案主張前申請案申請日優勢時，前申請案應「足夠揭露」後申請案的發明內容，這關於是否符合35USC112的揭露規定。
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/09-1472.pdf
（備份：https://app.box.com/s/hiwh0zdkj77yp4odkhn06kyvm2qdiywa）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言