連接副詞的效力 - MPEP 2111.04

筆記

MPEP 2111.04規範了副詞子句的效力，其中副詞指的是"adapted to"、"adapted for"（適用於）、"wherein"（其中）與"whereby"（藉此）等作為連接一段修飾之前元件的描述的連接詞。

然而，“ADAPTED TO,” “ADAPTED FOR,” “WHEREIN,” AND “WHEREBY”效力如何？一般原則是，沒什麼用，除非上下文使得這些連接詞有了意義。（我覺得）

這個「有點不確定」的小結論可以從MPEP 2111.04的規定得出，一開始，就提到權利範圍並不被請求項的語言所限制，有以下兩個情況：

(1) 當這些請求項語言建議或產生選擇（optional），而不是要求要執行哪些步驟時（"Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed"）；或是
(2) 當這些請求項語言並非限制申請專利範圍到一特定結構上（"or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure."）。

其中即列舉了可能會產生解釋限制的問題的連接副詞有“ADAPTED TO,” “ADAPTED FOR,” “WHEREIN,” AND “WHEREBY”。

接下去一句話就替我們解危了，連接副詞的效力：將根據個案事實來判斷這些連接副詞是否為專利範圍的限制。

其中列舉案例，如：

• Griffin v. Bertina，當副詞子句賦予步驟的意義與目的，"wherein"就是有效限制專利範圍；
  
• In re Giannelli，當說明書內容清楚使用"adapted to"作為限制條件，"adapted to"就限制了相關機構的請求項範圍；
  
  --本部落格報導："adapted to"的功能效力應基於說明書所揭露的發明（design intention）（about Claims）（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/02/adapted-todesign-intentionabout-claims.html）
  
• Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp.，當"whereby"說明了與專利性實質相關的條件，不能排除其實質改變了發明（有實質限制）；
  
  --本部落格報導：Intended Use 難以核准專利？（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/12/intended-use.html）
  
  
• Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc，然而，這裡也特別提到在方法專利請求項中，當"whereby"僅簡單表示其預期結果，並無份量（no weight）。
  
  --本部落格報導：若功能性用語關係到發明的本質，仍有份量！（about Claims）- 若方法專利的子句僅表達可預期的結果時，並無專利性的份量（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/02/about-claims_18.html）

[MPEP 2111.04]
MPEP 2111.04 “ADAPTED TO,” “ADAPTED FOR,” “WHEREIN,” AND “WHEREBY” CLAUSES

Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:

• (A) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses;
• (B) “wherein” clauses; and
• (C) “whereby” clauses.

The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 283 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a “wherein” clause limited a process claim where the clause gave “meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps”). In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found that an "adapted to" clause limited a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles." In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a “‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention.” Id. However, the court noted that a “‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’” Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).

其他相關MPEP過去的報導：

MPEP 2111.04
Intended Use 難以核准專利？（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/12/intended-use.html）

MPEP 2111.02
從案例討論前言的效力（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/07/blog-post_5.html）

前言的效力（MPEP 2111.02）（about claims）（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2013/11/mpep-211102about-claims.html）

前言的效力（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/11/blog-post_26.html）

MPEP 2111.01
了解辭彙編撰者(LEXICOGRAPHER)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/02/lexicographer.html）

資料參考：
http://www.bitlaw.com/

Ron