本篇討論1990年HP與Bausch案例，這是基於前一篇MPEP2114的筆記所引用的案例，可參考： MPEP 2114 - 裝置發明僅使用習知裝置固有功能的顯而易見性（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2023/09/mpep-2114.html）。
侵權原告/交叉上訴人/專利權人：HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
侵權被告/上訴人：BAUSCH & LOMB INCORPORATED
系爭專利：US4,384,298 (LaBarre)（訴訟中無效系爭專利的前案Re 31,684 (Yeiser)，這是被告的專利）
判決日期：July 30, 1990
本案緣此HP於1986年對Bausch & Lomb提出直接侵權（direct infringement）與誘使侵權（active inducement of infringement）告訴，結果，系爭專利判定有效且B&L侵權成立，但地方法院判定B&L非主動誘使侵權，於是雙方都對判決上訴。
本案討論的議題，除系爭專利US4,384,298 (LaBarre)的顯而易知性之外，其實也關於被告提出的證據，為被告B&L自己的專利權- Re31,684 (Yeiser)。
兩件專利都是關於印刷用的大型二維繪圖機的機構，判決文中提到繪圖機有兩種形式，第一是繪圖紙不動，由機構帶動筆移動繪圖；第二種是紙在Y方向移動（捲動），筆就在X方向移動繪圖。上述兩個專利是第二種。
US4,384,298 (LaBarre)
Re31,684 (Yeiser)
系爭專利'298(LaBarre)的claim 1如下：
1. An X-Y plotter system for forming images on a web comprising:
first means being coupled to at least one edge of said web for imparting motion thereto to provide a first degree of motion during plotting onto said web in response to a first applied signal;
second means for forming selected visual images on said web and being movable to provide a second degree of motion in response to a second applied signal; and
third means responsive to a third applied signal for imparting motion to said second means;
said first means including first drive means having at least one powered drive wheel contacting the web, and an idle wheel opposite to each of said drive wheels to form a pinch roller assembly with the web between the drive and idler wheels, one of said at least one drive and idler wheels having a rough surface, and said drive and idler wheels additionally being spring biased together to cause the rough surface to make a series of indentations along the driven edge of the web to minimize slippage with these indentations repeatedly mating with the rough surface of the drive wheel as the web is driven back and forth, wherein the rough surface on one of said at least one powered drive and idler wheels of the first drive means has a random pattern, size, and height of rough spots.
案件在USPTO審查時，審查委員已知有前案Yeiser存在，經過面詢討論，後來修正claim 1加上「wherein the rough surface on one of said at least one powered drive and idler wheels of the first drive means has a random pattern, size, and height of rough spots」特徵就獲准專利。
此段意思是，在第一驅動器的動力輪與惰輪上具有隨機圖案、大小與高度的粗糙點表面。
被告承認直接侵權，但提出自己的專利Yeiser（經過授權），認為系爭專利為顯而易知。其中理由是，B&L認為Yeiser教示滾輪上固有會建立紋路以符合滾輪本身的粗糙表面，就如系爭專利那樣。
"In particular, B L argued that the knurled wheel taught by Yeiser would inherently create indentations which would mate with the rough surface of the knurled wheel, as required by the claims of LaBarre."
但地院不同意，判決專利有效，直接侵權成立。
CAFC階段：
本篇討論系爭專利顯而易知性的議題。
地院討論系爭專利顯而易知性時，找到三處與Yeiser不同的特徵，但是CAFC僅討論「wherein the rough surface on one of said at least one powered drive and idler wheels of the first drive means has a random pattern, size, and height of rough spots」特徵（自然是因為這是或准專利的關鍵）。
關鍵就是在X-Y plotter的滾輪上有隨機圖樣、尺寸與高度的粗糙點是否能區隔先前技術？使其產生無法預期的功效？而使這樣的繪圖機具有非顯而易知性？
claim 1為裝置專利範圍，需要描述裝置是甚麼，而非裝置做甚麼?其中不需要在運作(功能性)上與先前技術區隔。
本案要釐清的就是，是否「滾輪上有隨機圖樣、尺寸與高度的粗糙點」與Yeiser的滾輪不同？是否相關領域一般技術人員會顯而易知地以「滾輪上有隨機圖樣、尺寸與高度的粗糙點」的滾輪取代Yeiser的滾輪？
其中關鍵的意見是，並非如B&L主張認為系爭專利的特徵與先前技術沒有"operational difference"，而是實際上是否Yeiser揭露了系爭專利的特徵，也就是討論的是結構上的差異。回應前篇MPEP 2114的第II節意思：引用CAFC案例"Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc. (Fed. Cir. 1990)"，如果"習知裝置"教示（teach）請求項裝置的所有結構特徵，請求項中主張的「裝置」使用方式（manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed）也無法與習知裝置區隔。
法院認為B&L並沒有證明為何相關領域技術人員要以「滾輪上有隨機圖樣、尺寸與高度的粗糙點」的滾輪取代Yeiser的滾輪。
沒有留言:
張貼留言