專利用詞「Adjacent」討論 - Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Intern., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005)

本篇討論專利用詞「Adjacent」，但也涉及一些解釋專利範圍的原則，還有常見以"first"、"second"命名多個相同元件的用語 - Free Motion Fitness, Inc. v. Cybex Intern., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2005)。

「Adjacent」中文翻為"鄰近的、毗鄰的、緊接著"，常用「Adjacent /to」描述兩個東西「鄰接」的關係，但到底有沒有"接到"鄰近的物品？

"a logic chip is arranged adjacent to the plurality of memory packages ..."
"wherein the plurality of terminals include system address terminals which are adjacent to the first corner of the logic chip and first and second system data terminals ..."
"a selection of multiple adjacent web faces of the CAD model and at least one datum plane of the CAD model that intersects the web faces ..."
"the second data track being adjacent to the first data track ..."
"In response to the randomly selected outcome including a special symbol on adjacent ones of the plurality of reels, ..."

案件資訊：
原告/上訴人：FREE MOTION FITNESS, INC.
被告/被上訴人：CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC., The Nautilus Group, Inc.
系爭專利：US6,238,323、US6,458,061
判決日：September 16, 2005

本案緣起原告Free Motion Fitness對被告Cybex提出侵權告訴，地院判決侵權不成立，經原告上訴CAFC，CAFC發回地院重新解釋申請專利範圍，以及文義讀取與均等論，其中更涉及禁反言（Prosecution history estoppel）的議題。

系爭專利US6,458,061關於一種交叉纜線的運動器材，請求項1界定一個包括有阻尼組以及連接雙延伸臂的纜線，其中第一延伸臂（12, 112）一端樞接（pivotally）而支持「鄰近（adjacent）」阻尼組；第二延伸臂（14, 114）一端樞接而支持鄰近阻尼組。

1. An exercise apparatus, comprising:

a resistance assembly;

a cable linking a first extension arm and a second extension arm to the resistance assembly, wherein the cable includes a first strand and a second strand;

the first extension arm includes a first end pivotally supported adjacent the resistance assembly at a first pivot point rotating about a first axis and a free second end from which the first strand of the cable extends for engagement by a user, the first end of the first extension arm further including a pulley having an axis of rotation offset from the first pivot point and rotating about an axis substantially parallel to the first axis;

the second extension arm includes a first end pivotally supported adjacent the resistance assembly at a second pivot point rotating about a second axis and a free second end from which the first strand of the cable extends for engagement by a user, the first end of the second extension arm further including a pulley having an axis of rotation offset from the second pivot point and rotating about an axis substantially parallel to the second axis.

這類結構專利圖式十分重要，法官解釋專利範圍時，參考說明書圖式，如'061的Fig. 6與7，系爭專利說明書內對「阻尼組（resistance assembly）」描述不多，但可以圖式來理解，Fig. 7是第一延伸臂（112）連接的阻尼組的細節，延伸臂（112）平行後方的滑輪。



被告Cybex也販售類似的運動器材，器材中對應的「阻尼組」與延伸臂可以樞接在不同的平面，使得被告侵權物的雙臂可以自我旋轉，判決書中形容如「喇叭鎖（doorknob）」的轉動方式。

地方法院：
如此，地院作出「文義讀取」侵權不成立的決定（"not literally infringed"），針對均等論，又考量系爭專利'323案在審查期間產生的歷史禁反言適用，使得原告也無法主張均等論，最終作出侵權不成立決定。原告上訴CAFC。

CAFC：
剛好當年2005年產出現在都在沿用解釋專利範圍原則的判例「Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed.Cir.2005) (en banc)」，CAFC即依照其中解釋專利範圍原則，以下摘錄法院解釋本案專利範圍的一些結果。

Phillips判例可參考：合理解釋專利範圍的案例 - Phillips v. AWH Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2005)（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2015/05/phillips-v-awh-corp-fed-cir-2005.html）

• 並未列於申請專利範圍中的特徵原則上不會用來限縮專利範圍，特別是專利範圍使用了開放式連接詞（comprising）（"The addition of unclaimed elements does not typically defeat infringement when a patent uses an open transitional phrase such as “comprising.”"）。
• 專利用語"first"與"second"常見用以區分多個相同元件（"“the use of the terms ‘first’ and ‘second’ is a common patent-law convention to distinguish between repeated instances of an element or limitation.”  3M Innovative Props. Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., 350 F.3d 1365, 1371 (Fed.Cir.2003)."），但非用以限制特定結構。
• 本案中，申請專利範圍包括第一、第二延伸臂，各連接第一樞接點（"first extension arm includes a first end; the second extension arm includes a first end"），但是，"first"不是指空間位置，並未建議各延伸臂的樞接點位置，正確的解釋是，"first"僅連接到第一樞接點，並非解釋第一、第二延伸臂的相對位置關係（"“First” does not denote spatial location, that is, it does not suggest where on the “first extension arm” or the “second extension arm” the pivot points are located.   The correct construction of the word “first” merely associates the first pivot point with the first extension arm, and thus does not support the district court's judgment that the accused devices do not infringe."）。
• 法院重申，請求項中的定冠詞「the」指向前述的「a」相同元件，但在開放式的請求項中不是用來限定元件數量（"We also reject Cybex's argument that use of the word “the” in connection with the word “cable” later in the claim shows that the earlier reference to “a” denotes singularity.   Like the words “a” and “an,” the word “the” is afforded the same presumptive meaning of “one or more” when used with the transitional phrase “comprising.” "）。
• 根據上條解釋，法院認為本案請求項中「a cable linking」意指「one or more cables linking」。
• 關於均等論，這裡有個原則：上下級法院都同意，專利範圍的disclaimer（如禁反言產生的放棄聲明）同等適用在文義讀取與均等論侵權判斷上（"We do address, however, one aspect of the district court's doctrine of equivalents analysis because the district court seemed to find a disclaimer of claim scope that could be equally applicable to literal and equivalent infringement."）。

接著是，本篇討論重點：adjacent

• 地院解釋系爭專利的各個延伸臂上的「樞接點」必須是「adjacent（鄰接）」到阻尼組（"The district court also held that the pivot point on each arm (as described in the claims) must be “adjacent the resistance assembly.”"），其中「adjacent」可以是或不是「接觸（contact）」，但此案則是兩個物體之間會有其他物件在其中（"The district court construed the word “adjacent” to mean “that objects may or may not be in contact, but are not adjacent to each other where there is another object between them.”"）。

然而，系爭專利說明書並未明確定義「adjacent」（內部證據），可參考外部證據，如字典定義、相關領域技術人員的理解。但有個原則是，如果字典解釋與內部證據相左，則不能採用。

"Our en banc decision in Phillips clarified the appropriate use of dictionaries in claim construction, rejecting the view that dictionary definitions govern unless contradicted by intrinsic evidence.  Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1320."

這回法官參考「Webster's Third New International Dictionary」，找出「adjacent」的兩個解釋，並同時參考申請專利範圍、說明書與審查歷史等內部證據。

第一，「adjacent」為非遠端（"not distant"）；第二，「adjacent」是相對接近，但沒有干預（"relatively near and having nothing of the same kind intervening"）。

經法官理解後，並參考內部證據，內部證據不支持第二個解釋，因此認為本案趨向第一個解釋。總之，本案申請專利範圍中的「adjacent」就是在「附近"near"」就是了，被告在地院階段同意這樣解釋。

如此，CAFC認為，被告產品的「樞接點」也與「阻尼組」為「非遠端（not distant）」的關係，並不是不被專利範圍讀入。

（重要）討論均等論時，地院因為系爭專利權人在審查歷史中產生禁反言，因此認為均等論不適用解釋專利範圍。但CAFC有個態度是，申請專利範圍中除了一些元件外，仍存在一些不想要的習知特徵（undesirable prior art feature），在審查過程中為了要克服核駁意見，也會對這些不想要的特徵進行修正與答辯，但，除非有明確與沒有錯誤的範圍拋棄聲明（disclaimer），這些對習知元件的修正與答辯並不會限制申請專利範圍。簡單來說，禁反言僅對修正的對象適用，不及於沒有改變的技術特徵。

"The presence of an undesirable prior art feature in addition to the elements recited in the claim, even when the undesirability of that feature formed the basis of an amendment and argument overcoming a rejection during prosecution, does not limit the claim unless there is a clear and unmistakable disclaimer of claim scope."

CAFC否決地院不侵權判決。

my two cents:
寫專利範圍真的是個學問，但以後上法院的爭議點總可能是在我們不在意的地方。

判決書可在此找到：
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-federal-circuit/1326094.html

Ron