解釋申請專利範圍應連結有意義的結果（Superior Industries v. Masaba）-about Claims

有關解釋申請專利範圍--應連結有意義的結果（案例Superior Industries v. Masaba）。這件侵權訴訟最後導致不明確的結果，理由是專利範圍解釋不明確，導致無法對比到侵權分析。

這是個沒有前例的CAFC判決。這個案件原本由Superior Industries, Inc.對Masaba, Inc.提出侵權訴訟，系爭專利有5件。

其中有兩件關於車機底架的專利：US7,470,101、US7,618,231，專利描述了支撐與底盤系統，用於輸送物品材料，被告Masaba則是製造和銷售自己設計的輸送裝置與支撐系統。
結果地方法院、告訴人、被告對於專利範圍的解釋有爭議。

專利範圍解釋在於一些名詞用語，包括：
"channel beam"
"C-shaped channel beam"
"elongate opening"

以US7,470,101為例：

1. A telescoping support strut configured to support a conveyor assembly of a portable conveyor system relative to a base frame, the support strut comprising:

a first strut section having a first beam and a second beam and a plurality of braces coupled therebetween, the first and second beams being generally parallel to one another, the first and second beams of the first strut section each having a connector at a first end configured to pivotally connect to the conveyor assembly of the portable conveyor system and a second end;

a second strut section having a first generally C-shaped channel beam and a second generally C-shaped channel beam, the first and second channel beams having a generally equal length and being generally parallel to one another, the first and second channel beams each comprising a perimeter wall and an elongate opening that extends the length of the first and second channel beams, the elongate opening of the first channel beam facing the elongate opening of the second channel beam, the first and second channel beams defining an open space between the respective elongate openings, and a plurality of braces coupled between the first and second channel beams outside of the open space, the first and second channel beams each having a first end configured to pivotally connect to the base frame of the portable conveyor system and a second end configured to receive the second ends of the first and second beams, respectively, of the first strut section, the first strut section movable within the second strut section; and

first and second telescoping hydraulic cylinders extending along the second strut section in the open space between the first and second channel beams, the first and second hydraulic cylinders connected to the first strut section to telescopically extend the first strut section relative to the second strut section.

有關卡車卸料的技術則有：US7,424,943、US7,607,529、US7,845,482，有爭議的名詞用語為：
US7,845,482
"ramp section"
"U-shaped frame"
"end frame member"
"drive-on ramp"

5. A portable conveyor system with a drive-over material receiving opening, the conveyor system comprising:

a longitudinally extending frame comprising a first end and a second end, the first end of the frame configured for connection to a towing vehicle, the second end of the frame configured for transportation over a ground surface, the frame carrying a conveyor belt assembly generally between the first and second ends of the frame, wherein a first portion of the frame adjacent to the first end defines a first frame height, the first portion of the frame configured to rest on the ground surface; and

a drive-over ramp system near the first end of the frame, the drive-over ramp system comprising a first ramp section pivotally mounted on a first side of the frame, the first ramp section having a first pair of side walls on opposite sides thereof, a second ramp section pivotally on a second side of the frame, the second ramp section having a second pair of side walls on opposite sides thereof, and a third ramp section supported on the frame between the first and second ramp sections, the third ramp section comprising a grate positioned over a portion of the conveyor belt assembly for receiving bulk material from a material transport vehicle and having a third pair of side walls on opposite sides thereof, the first, second and third pair of side walls cooperating to retain excess bulk material deposited by the material transport vehicle on the drive over ramp system, wherein the first and second pair of side walls are moveable relative to the third pair of side walls as the first and second ramp sections pivot from a first lowered position to a second raised position.

US7,607,529
"ramp support frame"
"defining a barrier"
"configured to support an earthen ramp at a level even with the drive over surface"
"maintain support of the earthen ramp"

US7,424,943
"support frame"
"frame member configured to support an end of an earthen ramp constructed against the frame member"
"to provide a material transport vehicle access to the first and second ramps"
"to maintain integrity of the earthen ramp"

系爭專利範圍中有幾個爭議的名詞，在地方法院（District of Minnesota）程序中，法官解釋後，告訴人Superior自己也承認因為這些解釋可能使得侵權不成立，於是從專利侵權訴訟不成立的簡易判決中提出上訴。

討論：
地方法院程序中，一般會由地方法院法官進行專利範圍解釋（claim construction），而專利範圍解釋應該是對相關專利訴訟有意義的結果，否則就沒有需要解釋。

之後案件上訴到CAFC，雖然告訴人Superior挑戰法官對於專利範圍的解釋，但是CAFC在沒有提出實質意見前就因為不明瞭：系爭專利經過修改權利範圍中是否會改變原有專利結果？也就是法官不確定是否專利範圍解釋會影響到侵權分析（被告侵權物並非如專利的設計目的），至少要諮詢更多意見，無法作出不侵權判決，因此作出拒絕上訴理由的決定，併發回重審，同時建議幾個解釋專利範圍的意見。

這個判決頗為罕見，但也合理，如果專利範圍並無涉及如被告物品的功能與目的，大概連解釋都不用了！
特別是，CAFC法官Rader對此作出一些意見：他同意地院的判斷，但也建議解釋專利範圍時，應（整理自Patently-O的報導與CAFC的判決）：
(1)因為專利說明書內容並非專利請求範圍，因此不能用來限制專利範圍；
(2)專利範圍一般來說不能限制到說明書所描述的特定實施例中，即便僅有一個實施例；
(3)（與本案有關）"系統"權利範圍應涵蓋一個"系統"，而不涵蓋該"系統"所做的事；
(4)解釋系統中非功能性的權利範圍用語，使得配合侵權物的功能，這是不恰當的。

Ron
資料參考：Patently-O, CAFC