申請號：12/433275
公開號：US 20100277421
系爭案界定一種行動裝置，具有"主要"面向"主要使用者"的前表面，以及一個"主要"非面向主要使用者的背表面，這是一個具有透明顯示器的手機。
Claim 1：
1. A portable electronic device having a front side surface, which is intended to be primarily used facing toward a principal user and a back side surface, which is intended to be primarily used facing away from the principal user, the portable electronic device comprising:
a transparent display module including a primary light emitting transparent display having a first side surface and a second side surface, which emits a light toward each of the first side surface and the second side surface in disproportionate amounts, where an amount of light emitted toward the first side surface is less than an amount of light emitted toward the second side surface, and
wherein the transparent display module is mounted in the portable electronic device, so that the first side surface of the transparent display module which emits the lesser amount of light is oriented toward the front side surface of the portable electronic device, and the second side surface of the transparent display module which emits the greater amount of light is oriented toward the back side surface of the portable electronic device.
Claim 14：14. A method for using one or more light emitting transparent displays in a portable electronic device comprising:
placing a primary light emitting transparent display into a portable electronic device, such that a first side surface of the primary light emitting transparent display is oriented toward a front side surface of the portable electronic device, which is intended to be primarily used facing toward a principal user, and such that a second side surface of the primary light emitting transparent display is oriented toward a back side of the portable electronic device, which is intended to be primarily used facing away from the principal user; and
emitting an image via the primary light emitting transparent display, so that a lesser amount of light associated with the image is emitted toward the first side surface of the primary light emitting transparent display, and a greater amount of light associated with the image is emitted toward the second side surface of the primary light emitting transparent display.
系爭案歷經兩次USPTO核駁，於此上訴PTAB。核駁理由都有112議題，主要面對112時，有一些主觀用語的不明確問題：
問題就出在，發明人企圖透過"primarily"用語保留專利範圍有某種模糊的解釋空間，使得其中如"primarily"的主觀用語變得不明確，但重點是，說明書又沒有其他比較客觀的標準來判斷何謂"primarily"。
對於系爭案用語"primarily"不明確的理由是，"primarily"為一主觀用語，訴願人並未在請求項或說明書提出任何判斷其範圍的標準，引用DDR Holdings案例中對於不明確用語的判斷原則，認為系爭案中"primarily"等主觀用語不明確。
"We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. On its face, the term "primarily" in "primarily viewed by a principal user in a direction" is subjective, and Appellants have not pointed to anything in the claims or Appellants' specification that provides a standard for determining the scope of the term. Such subjective language renders the term indefinite. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("When a claim term depend[s] solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purportedly practicing the invention, without sufficient guidance in the specification to provide objective direction to one of skill in the art, the term is indefinite." (citation and quotation marks omitted)). Moreover, because this language is arguably redundant with the language that immediately follows it, it is unclear how (or whether) the language alters the scope of the claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection."
其中引用DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (Fed. 2014)案例對於112不明確的理由：當請求項用語僅為實施該發明的個體（人）的非限制、主觀意見，而說明書未有足夠指示相關技術人員客觀方向時，該用語不明確。
PTAB對於112的意見：
不明確的地方也在其他請求項出現，比如first side surface, principle user...等，都面對不明確的問題。
PTAB最後確認USPTO駁回專利的意見（112, 103）。
my two cents:
如果要用「主觀或模糊的用語」，說明書盡量能夠清楚定義這個用語。
其實想要用「模糊的用語」來擴大專利範圍解釋空間是很正常的，但從不少案例來看，這是不好的用法，或許專利審查時可能會被"蒙蔽"而獲准專利，但是面對專利訴訟時，又會被拿起來"檢討"，解釋專利範圍尤其無法容許有不明確的用語。如以下列舉案例：
請求項使用的相對用語（about Claims）- Datamize v. Plumtree (Fed. Cir. 2005)案例討論
（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/12/about-claims-datamize-v-plumtree-fed.html）
"在CAFC階段，專利權人主張這個感官的用語為相關技術的人可以瞭解， 甚至提到設計專利，不過法院並不認同，認為這個主觀功能性描述並沒有明確專利範圍，也無法認定專利範圍而判斷被告是否侵權，於是認為專利無效。"
先前案例分享：
商業方法可專利性？電腦軟體專利的生機 - DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com (Fed. 2014)案例討論（http://enpan.blogspot.tw/2014/12/ddr-holdings-v-hotelscom-fed-2014.html）
訴願決定：https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/22398979/year2015/1711/affirmed/Charlier.pdf
資料參考：ptab.us
Ron
沒有留言:
張貼留言