申請專利範圍中的"if"或是"when" - 筆記

- 美國審委來電通知的修正建議：

... The Examiner indicated that the conditional term "if" in the last paragraph of independent claim 1 makes the claims indefinite and thus raises 35 USC 112 issues.  The Examiner suggested that the applicant remove the term "if" from the independent claim or replace it with the term "when" in order to place the application in condition for allowance.  ...

一些筆記/雜記：

"if"是一種條件式，若"條件"滿足，即執行相應動作。

"when"也是一種條件式，當"條件"滿足，即執行相應動作。

這樣，怎麼正確使用，這也是我在學習的部分，直覺的答案是，視實際發明技術而定。在Google搜尋"when" or "if" in claims?

從大部分的建議可知，先有一個覺察，在claim中，"when"總比"if"好，並且使用這類＂條件式＂用語的專利範圍總是小心一點。

可參考之前分享：

－申請專利範圍中條件式用語 - 筆記與Lincoln案（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2024/08/lincoln.html）

－當有條件符合而流程結束，就以此為最廣專利範圍 - Ex parte Schulhauser (PTAB 2013-007847)（https://enpan.blogspot.com/2016/10/ex-parte-schulhauser-ptab-2013-007847.html）

"Schulhauser案教示我們，方法專利中適度的條件式限制可以影響其專利性，因為方法流程中會根據特定幾個條件執行一些動作。"

找資料時意外發現澳洲專利局官網竟然關心起專利範圍寫作/解釋的問題，確實值得好好探索一番：https://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.5.4-claims-construction-and-claim-types

• 5.5.4.1 The claims are construed as a legal document;
• 5.5.4.2 Presumption against redundancy;
• 5.5.4.3 Omnibus claims;
• 5.5.4.4 Swiss claims;
• 5.5.4.5 Product by process claims;
• 5.5.4.6 Parametric claims;
• 5.5.4.7 ‘For use in’, ‘when used’, and similar wording in claims;
• 5.5.4.8 ‘Comprises‘, ‘includes‘, ‘consists of‘, and ‘contains‘ in claims;
• 5.5.4.9 Reference numerals in claims;
• 5.5.4.10 Relative terms;
• 5.5.4.11 ‘Substantially‘, ‘about‘, and ‘generally’; and
• 5.5.4.12 Appended claims.

（你知道Appended claims與dependent claims差別嗎？看看5.5.4.12節）

5.5.4.7 ‘For use in’, ‘when used’, and similar wording in claims

"Phrases such as ‘for use’ and ‘when used’ are construed to inherently impart an element of conditionality, signalling that the true scope of the claim is likely to be different from a superficial reading of the words."

"for use"與"when used"，本質上解釋為條件式用語，使得專利範圍解釋可能與表面文字上不同。這類用語解釋需要參考上下文而定。

（探討這類專利範圍用語時，發現．．．發散掉了，就變成雜記）

Environmental claims:

不同於結構特徵使用比較精準的用語的專利範圍，若專利範圍寫成... "for use in"/"used to"/"used for"，僅是指出相關標的的使用情境，並沒有限制該標的甚麼，而僅是環境而已！結果，就如功能性用語一般，沒有實質影響。

"However, claims in the form ‘An apparatus for [for use in/used to/used for etc. …]‘ merely indicate the environment the apparatus is intended to be used in; they do not limit the apparatus to use solely in that environment (Thurston Catton’s Application [1978] AOJP 3666). Consequently, a claim of this form is construed to be a claim to the apparatus per se, albeit having a functional capability in the specified environment."

一些參考資料：

- https://www.oamic.com/resources/claims-not-if-but-when/

- https://manuals.ipaustralia.gov.au/patent/5.5.4.7-for-use-in-when-used-and-similar-wording-in-claims

Ron