在前章討論「BRI受制於112(f)的解釋原則 - IPCom v. HTC (Fed. Cir. 2017)」的內容中，CAFC引述1994年CAFC聯席法官議決案「Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994)」，雖是1994年判決，但因為本次IPCom v. HTC案又重新確立"means-plus-function"的解釋原則，即便在最夯的"Broadest and Reasonable Interpretation"原則下，仍可知"Reasonable"比"Broadcast"更重要，有案例「In re Kevin R. Imes」證明。
在Donaldson案中解釋申請專利範圍中「means-plus-function」用語時，原本USPTO審查委員以最廣的方式，應該是指任何達成該項功能的任何手段（"any means capable of performing the recited"），但被法官否決，聯席法官指示：解釋申請專利範圍中功能手段用語時，應看說明書內容，參考當中對應結構、材料或動作的描述。
"We explained that the construction of a means-plus-function limitation under § 112 (6) “must look to the specification and interpret that language in light of the corresponding structure, material, or acts described therein, and equivalents thereof, to the extent that the specification provides such disclosure.”"
案更引用在MPEP 2111.01（AIA前後適用）規定中："claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof"。
MPEP 2111.01 PLAIN MEANING
"When an element is claimed using language falling under the scope of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 6th paragraph (often broadly referred to as means- (or step-) plus- function language), the specification must be consulted to determine the structure, material, or acts corresponding to the function recited in the claim, and the claimed element is construed as limited to the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189, 29 USPQ2d 1845 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (see MPEP § 2181- MPEP § 2186)."
Donaldson案討論：
系爭專利：US4,395,269 (Schuler)
一種小型防塵過濾器，或說集塵器：
請求項1：
1. An air filter assembly for filtering air laden with particulate matter, said assembly comprising:
a housing having a clean air chamber and a filtering chamber, said housing having an upper wall, a closed bottom, and a plurality of side walls depending from said upper wall;
a clean air outlet from said clean air chamber in one of said side walls;
a dirty air inlet to said filtering chamber positioned in a wall of said housing in a location generally above said clean air outlet;
means separating said clean air chamber from said filtering chamber including means mounting a plurality of spaced-apart filter elements within said filtering chamber, with each of said elements being in fluid communication with said air outlet;
pulse-jet cleaning means, intermediate said outlet and said filter elements, for cleaning each of said filter elements;
and
a lowermost portion in said filtering chamber arranged and constructed for the collection of particulate matter, said portion having means, responsive to pressure increases in said chamber caused by said cleaning means, for moving particulate matter in a downward direction to a bottommost point in said portion for subsequent transfer to a location exterior to said assembly.
編按：以上請求項1綜合了明確結構特徵以及「means」用語，雖說「means」在當年應該是適用112(f)的標準寫法，但以現在來看，不一定"housing"、"dirty air inlet"都有可能被認定為功能用語。
本案緣起Donaldson公司針對1991年BPAI（PTAB前身）的審查意見（重新確認系爭專利再審查90/001,776結果 - Claim 1核駁確立，103議題）提出上訴，案件進入CAFC。
在討論USPTO/BPAI解釋專利範圍時，其實是面對103顯而易見性的議題。系爭專利請求項1中的元件「pulse-jet cleaning means」會反應壓力，當集塵的腔體壓力提昇時，這個「pulse-jet cleaning means」會向下移動。而先前技術（U.S. Patent No. 3,421,295 (Swift patent)）的設計（如下圖）看來沒有這個可能性。
先前技術US 3,421,295揭示一個空氣過濾裝置，表面上看來，與系爭專利有很大的不同，不過，就「功能」而言，可能會相互涵蓋，但如果參考了說明書內容，就有差異，因此，法官所帶出的解釋原則（或說態度）是對系爭專利的專利性比較友善的（卻可能對侵權判斷時為相反效果）。
CAFC法官對於系爭專利顯而易見性的判斷是，Swift patent沒有教示系爭專利（Schuler）中可以反應壓力的彈性牆，認為BAPI並未對系爭專利爭議的申請專利範圍建立顯而易見的初步印象（"prima facie case of obviousness"），因此認為相關領域一般技術人員不能通過修改Swift得到Schuler的彈性牆，也就是如同隔膜式的結構。
"The Swift collector does not teach or suggest the flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure claimed by Schuler. Indeed, there is no teaching or suggestion in Swift that the hopper walls therein be anything but rigid and non-responsive to any pressure increases within the collector. Consequently, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Swift to obtain Schuler’s flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure."
對於解釋「隔膜式結構（"diaphragm-like structure"）」顯然是看了專利說明書與圖式得到的，如下擷取的內容：
最終，這是一個基於技術比對的結論（diaphragm-like structure不同於傳統的hopper），不過，結論卻也教示我們解釋功能手段用語專利範圍的一般原則，要參考說明書及圖式的描述：
"Nevertheless, as explained previously, section 112, paragraph six, requires us and the PTO to construe the “means, responsive to pressure” language recited in claim 1 as limited to a flexible-wall, diaphragm-like structure as disclosed in Schuler’s specification, or an “equivalent” thereof. In this regard, the Commissioner has failed to establish the existence in conventional hopper structures like Swift’s of any inherent vibrations resulting from pulse-jet cleaning sufficient to loosen hardened dust that gathers on hopper walls."
結論：
"For the foregoing reasons, we hold, as a matter of law, that Swift does not render the structure defined by claim 1 obvious under 35 U.S.C. Section 103, and therefore we reverse the decision of the Board. On the record before us, we see no reason to remand this case for further findings as to “equivalents” as suggested by the Commissioner. REVERSED"
my two cents:
雖說專利確認功能手段用語的範圍應參考說明書對應結構的描述可以保住專利範圍，但使用「功能手段用語」的初衷多半是想要比較廣的解釋空間，或是實在沒有準確的結構可以描述，但這個想法已經在眾多案例中破滅，並且"means"已經不再是適用112(f)的唯一依據，所以這類用語使用需要十分小心，若有這樣的用語，說明書想必要更詳細、多樣，以免限定在過少的涵蓋範圍中。
本篇是源自「BRI受制於112(f)的解釋原則 - IPCom v. HTC (Fed. Cir. 2017)」報導。
In re Donaldson Co. Inc.案en banc判決文：
http://digital-law-online.info/cases/29PQ2D1845.htm
與本篇相關Blog文章：
- BRI受制於112(f)的解釋原則 - IPCom v. HTC (Fed. Cir. 2017)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2017/07/bri112f-ipcom-v-htc-fed-cir-2017.html）
- 了解辭彙編撰者(LEXICOGRAPHER)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2009/02/lexicographer.html）
- 合理解釋專利範圍比最廣還重要 - IN RE KEVIN R. IMES案例討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/01/in-re-kevin-r-imes.html）
感謝James Long指導（ptab.us）
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言