2017年2月3日 星期五

請求項中"and/or"的專利用語侵權案例討論 - Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2001)

筆記加上案例討論

「A, B, and/or C」與「A, B and/or C」解釋起來是有點不同,前者表示「A, B, C的個別,或是A, B, C的任意組合,包括A+B, A+C, B+C或A+B+C」,後者表示「A+B, A+C,或A+B+C,總有A就是了」。

以上是我的認知,逗號「","」位置與有沒有會影響解釋範圍,不過,英式與美式認知上有所不同,英式在後者仍如前者的解釋,實務上,還是不要挑戰法官最後的解釋,因此過去的法院案例十分重要。

過去曾經討論「and/or」的用法,其中關鍵是「"/"」的意思,因此也涉及使用「in/out」、「above/below」、「inner/outer」等選擇的用途。一般這樣寫,「"/"」是「or」的意思,只是用在「and/or」會有模糊空間。

過去曾經討論到案例「Joao v. Sleepy Hollow Bank (S.D.N.Y. 2004)」,可參考:http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/10/17/conjunctions-andor-patent-claims/id=45733/

還有本部落格的報導:

這裡講"and/or"的"更好的寫法"是:「在PTAB的意見中,解釋「A and/or B」為A, B之個別或是兩者組合,但建議最好的寫法(preferred verbiage)是「at least one of A and B」,其實PTAB認同"and/or"的寫法,不過前提是:說明書要支持"and/or"的解釋,才會讓這個用語夠明確。

即便有不少前案可以參考,也支持"and/or"的明確性,但總有審查委員不認同,因此,更嚴格的處理方式是:不使用"and/or"說明書要支持"and/or"用意上包含所有的可能性,以及在請求項中使用「at least one of A, B, and C」

申請專利範圍才是重點!

很多老美都引用了這句在1990年首席法官Rich所寫的一句話『"The name of the game is the claim."』,因此沒有好的權利要求,再棒的說明書如果將都沒有意義。

不過,從很多案例可知,解釋專利範圍需要強而有力的後盾,就是說明書的支持,因此,我們仍需要很棒的說明書。

案例討論:
Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F. 3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2001)

案件資訊:
原告/專利權人/上訴人:KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC.
被告/被上訴人:APPLIED CONCEPTS, INC. and JOHN L. AKER
系爭專利:US 5,528,246

本案例為自地方法院同意侵權不成立簡易判決上訴CAFC,

系爭專利US 5,528,246關於一種應用都普勒效應分析頻譜而排除干擾的交通號誌雷達,可以優化識別道路上車輛的能力,Claim 1如下,為處理交通雷達中都普勒資訊的方法,包括接收自車輛回彈的訊號,轉為數位訊號,並轉至頻域中的頻譜,儲存後,搜尋其中預選幅度頻率的部分,如此可指出目標車輛的速度。


1. A method of processing Doppler return information in a traffic radar comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving Doppler return information containing at least one return signal derived from a target vehicle,
(b) presenting said Doppler return information as digital data,
(c) transforming said data into the frequency domain to provide a spectrum that includes frequency components corresponding to Doppler return signals contained in said information,
(d) storing said components in a memory,
(e) searching said components in memory for the component that meets preselected magnitude or frequency criteria, and
(f) indicating the speed of the target vehicle corresponding to the component that meets said criteria.
16. In a traffic radar, apparatus for processing Doppler return information comprising:
means for receiving Doppler return information containing at least one return signal derived from a target vehicle, and for presenting said information as digital data,
means for transforming said data into the frequency domain to provide a spectrum that includes frequency components corresponding to Doppler return signals contained in said information,
memory means for storing said components,
means for searching the components stored in said memory means to identify the component that meets preselected magnitude or frequency criteria, and
means responsive to the identified component for indicating the speed of the target vehicle corresponding thereto.
20. In a traffic radar, apparatus for processing Doppler return information comprising:
means for receiving Doppler return information containing at least one return signal derived from a target vehicle, and for presenting said information as digital data,
means for transforming said data into the frequency domain to provide a spectrum that includes frequency components corresponding to Doppler return signals contained in said information,
means for determining the magnitude and frequency of each of said components,
memory means for storing said components,
search means for providing a plurality of modes of operation, including a mode in which a target vehicle component of greatest magnitude in said memory means is identified and a mode in which a target vehicle component of highest frequency in said memory means is identified, and
means under operator control for selecting either a greatest magnitude or highest frequency search, whereby either strongest signal or fastest signal target identification is provided.

以上各獨立請求項中的用語「"or"」,經專利範圍解釋為「兩者選其一,"a choice between either one of two alternatives"」,但並非兩者兼備("not both")。

這個解釋成為本案侵權不成立的關鍵!

這時,專利權人Kustom跳腳了,認為"or"不應僅限制在幅度與頻率兩者其中之一("a search of either the fastest target data (frequency) or the strongest target data (magnitude)")。但法院認為,雖然"or"是個邏輯運算子,但是從說明書前後文,加上審查歷史可知,Kustom並非用來作為邏輯運算子,而是使用"or"的一般意思,本案例的"or"是二擇一的意思。



解釋完專利範圍,就來看被告侵權產品Applied Concepts的交通雷達,這個雷達全時執行最快(頻率)與最強(幅度)的搜尋,而不是如系爭專利請求項中二擇一,使得「文義不讀取」。

Kustom繼續爭辯,認為請求項使用開放式連接詞"comprising",但是法院認為這個用語並不能讓專利範圍排除自己的限制。
(重要)


均等論討論時,因為Kustom在審查歷史中強調有選擇搜尋模式(magnitude or frequency),已經產生禁反言,不適用均等論。


結論是,侵權不成立。

my two cents:
"OR"的解釋影響專利範圍,如果被告是用"AND",也不是沒有機會"均等",但是當解釋"OR"時參閱說明書、審查過程,若不適用均等論,則就可能不落入專利範圍。

或許,回歸到"AND/OR"的用法,就是不錯的用語,若再要排除不明確,就考慮"at least one of ..."用語。

(updated on Feb. 9, 2017)如果要有更廣的解釋,律師建議:"at least one or more of A, B, and C"。

Kustom案檔案:http://www.finnegan.com/files/Publication/fffb21c8-daee-4f67-ba7c-a010660f194d/Presentation/PublicationAttachment/b9e1ac81-6dc8-4541-8554-7fac3a8050e2/99-1564-090501.pdf

參考資料:
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/10/17/conjunctions-andor-patent-claims/id=45733/
http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=147b1250-08aa-4b9c-b099-0440d634a77b

感謝James Long意見。

Ron

沒有留言: