一些申請專利範圍中標示元件符號的範例：
EPC Rule 43規範歐洲專利範圍寫作，可參考過去筆記：EPC Rule 43 歐洲專利Claim寫作（About Claims XXXIX）（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2011/05/epc-rule-43-claimabout-claims-xxxix.html）；Rule 43(7)則是關於專利範圍中如何標示的規定，如過去筆記：歐洲專利Rule 43(7)專利範圍標註編號的筆記（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/10/rule-437.html）。
關於EP申請專利範圍中標示元件符號（reference signs）的問題，其實多數國家可以允許，但是避免被不當解釋或限縮，實務上是不去標示，但歐洲專利局則要求要標示元件符號，其目的不是為了"解釋"專利範圍，而是"瞭解"專利範圍。
最明確的規定在Rule 43(7)：具有元件符號的圖式的歐洲專利申請案（化學案可能沒有圖式），讓申請專利範圍比較清晰，在申請專利範圍中的技術特徵應該較佳地隨著這些元件符號標示在圓括號中，而這些元件編號將不會用來限制專利範圍。
Rule 43 Form and content of claims
(7)
Where the European patent application contains drawings including reference signs, the technical features specified in the claims shall preferably be followed by such reference signs relating to these features, placed in parentheses, if the intelligibility of the claim can thereby be increased. These reference signs shall not be construed as limiting the claim.
歐洲審查指南（Guidelines for Examination）Part F, Chapter 4中4.19節規定，如果申請案包括圖式，可以加入技術特徵與對應圖示元件符號的連結關係以改善對於申請專利範圍的理解（所以，加入元件符號的目的是要改善對專利範圍的理解）。適當的元件符號應擺在申請專利範圍中元件之後的括號中。
如果有多個不同的實施例，只要將最重要實施例的元件符號加入「獨立請求項」。申請專利範圍應以兩段式撰寫，元件符號不僅加在特徵部分，也要加在前言部分。特別再講，元件符號功能只是讓申請專利範圍容易理解，但不能限制專利範圍。
接著是提到不符規定的標示，曾於http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2016/10/rule-437.html筆記過。
4.19
If the application contains drawings, and the comprehension of the claims would be improved by establishing the connection between the features mentioned in the claims and the corresponding reference signs in the drawings, then appropriate reference signs should be placed in parentheses after the features mentioned in the claims. If there is a large number of different embodiments, only the reference signs of the most important embodiments need be incorporated in the independent claim(s). Where claims are drafted in the two-part form set out in Rule 43(1), the reference signs should be inserted not only in the characterising part but also in the preamble of the claims. Reference signs should not however be seen as limiting the extent of the matter protected by the claims; their sole function is to make claims easier to understand. A comment to that effect in the description is acceptable (see T 237/84).
If text is added to reference signs in parentheses in the claims, lack of clarity can arise (Art. 84). Expressions such as "securing means (screw 13, nail 14)" or "valve assembly (valve seat 23, valve element 27, valve seat 28)" are not reference signs in the sense of Rule 43(7) but are special features, to which the last sentence of Rule 43(7) is not applicable. Consequently, it is unclear whether the features added to the reference signs are limiting or not. Accordingly, such bracketed features are generally not permissible. However, additional references to those figures where particular reference signs are to be found, such as "(13 - Figure 3; 14 - Figure 4)", are unobjectionable.
A lack of clarity can also arise with bracketed expressions that do not include reference signs, e.g. "(concrete) moulded brick". In contrast, bracketed expressions with a generally accepted meaning are allowable, e.g.-"(meth)acrylate" which is known as an abbreviation for "acrylate and methacrylate". The use of brackets in chemical or mathematical formulae is also unobjectionable.
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言