作者blueson (银河的承诺)
看板Patent
标题Re: [问题] coupled to 与 electrically connected …
时间Wed Jan 16 07:48:54 2008
※ 引述《wqk (wqk)》之铭言:
: 请问各位,这两个terms如果在说明书没有特别定义,在claim construction的范围上
: 有什麽差异?
: 我听说coupled to 范围比较大,但有哪位先进知道两者的差异处何在吗?
: thx a lot
在进行claim construction时
对於有争议的claim用语,其文义解释必须根据内部证据及外部证据
因此在解释 "coupled to" 或 "electrically connected to" 的范围时
会受到 specification 以及 prosecution histroy 的限制
上述两个用语并没有说谁的范围一定比较大
在不同的case,常会有不同的解释
主要的争议多半落在 "直接或间接"、"机构性或电性"...
只能说依据大部分判决的结果, "coupled to"的范围会比较大
以下仅摘录一些判决结果作为参考
基本上,最好把整个判决的来龙去脉了解清楚
而不要把判决的结果当作是上述两用语的标准定义
Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco Corp.
(claim term “coupled” would not be restricted to a mechanical or
physical coupling based on an inference from the written description,
but could include electrical coupling as there was nothing in the
specification or prosecution history to clearly limit couple from its
broad meaning of connecting.)
Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc v. ev3 Inc.
(based on intrinsic evidence construing “couple” to require direct
connection—“The term ‘coupled’ appears in claim 1.
Boston Scientific proposes that the term be construed as ‘directly
or indirectly linked.’ ev3 argues that ‘coupled’ should be construed
as ‘the filter must be directly attached to the wire and not be
attached to a tube that rides on the wire.’ After reviewing the
intrinsic evidence, and the prosecution history in particular,
the Court construes oupled’as adjacent and directly connected to.’”)
NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.
(construing “connected to” in a claim limitation reciting “
each mobile device comprising a wireless device connected to a mobile
processor” as not necessarily precluding the wireless device and mobile
processor from being located in same physical structure and stating
“Webster's Third New International Dictionary 480 (1993) defines ‘
connected’ as ‘to join, fasten, or link together.’ Although
‘connected' more strongly connotes a physical link between the mobile
processor and the wireless receiver than does the term ‘transfer,’
it still does not require that the mobile processor and wireless receiver
be physically disposed in separate housings. A 'onnection’can occur
between these two devices regardless of whether they are housed separately
or together. Indeed, the two components could be connected, joined, or
linked together by wires or other electrical conductors and still be
located in the same housing or even on the same circuit board.")
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 59.115.177.79
1F:推 demonhom:推 建议给个m吧 01/16 08:48
2F:推 forcomet:有判例有推 01/16 10:07
3F:推 jerico:推! 01/16 10:19
4F:推 priorart:原PO乃本板专利强人也 不推对不起台湾智财界! 01/16 19:32
5F:→ blueson:囧...只是手边有些资料,与版友分享一下自己的看法而已 01/16 20:06
6F:→ blueson:不过,specification的写法以及OA的答辩技巧真的很重要! 01/16 20:08
7F:→ concen:electrically connected跟connected不知道有没有差喔? 01/16 23:42
8F:→ concen:也谢谢你的资料,才知道有不少争议。当初学到的还以为就是 01/16 23:50
9F:→ concen:'定义'了呢。 01/16 23:51
10F:→ demonhom:electrically connected 跟 connected 一定不一样 XD 01/17 11:52
11F:→ demonhom:前者系以"electrically"此一现象或功能,限定"connected" 01/17 11:53
12F:→ demonhom:後者则无 ,差异甚明 01/17 11:56
13F:推 jerico:电性连接,感觉就是只要电过的去都算! 01/17 19:04
14F:→ concen:那意思是jerico举的connected没有疑义罗?有疑义需多讨论的 01/17 22:37
15F:→ concen:是electrically connected罗(如blueson讨论的)? 01/17 22:39
16F:→ concen:sorry..没仔细看blueson的例子..例子好像是探讨couple的 01/17 22:41
17F:→ concen:意义。 01/17 22:42
18F:→ blueson:根据手边七.八个判决,coupled跟connected要看内部证据较准 01/17 23:20
19F:→ blueson:至於electrically connected,如d大所述,有"电性"的限制 01/17 23:21
20F:→ blueson:个人较偏好在电路案,写成"耦接",并翻成"coupled to" 01/17 23:23
21F:→ blueson:通讯案就写"连接",翻成"connected" 01/17 23:28
22F:→ blueson:机构案则习惯将元件上位化,用包含,再叙述各作动件的动作 01/17 23:29
23F:→ blueson:不偏好在机构案claim中去写"A连接B",会限制机构连结关系 01/17 23:32
24F:→ concen:谢谢你的说明,我原先是在问电路案,有没有加electrically 01/17 23:38
25F:→ concen:有没有差..我知道是有加是限定为电性,但电路案若没加 01/17 23:39
26F:→ concen:会不会意思范围比较不同? 01/17 23:40
27F:→ concen:所以刚刚发了另一文,分析你举的三个例子,但还是不能确定 01/17 23:41
28F:→ concen:很多地方,可能我例子看得不够多。 01/17 23:43
29F:→ concen:电路案会写耦接真的我会觉得是考量到范围这点,通讯案是 01/17 23:44
30F:→ concen:或其他地方是比较少看到耦接..不知道是否电路案比较特殊 01/17 23:44
31F:推 demonhom:如果是相当常见且习知的电路元件或电路单元"电性连接" 01/18 01:59
32F:→ demonhom:我想还是倾向用"连接".为什麽呢 因为即便是写claim 01/18 02:00
33F:→ demonhom:物件连接一定有其用意在,例如常写"其系用以.." 01/18 02:02
34F:→ demonhom:我想 由於大部分的情况 在前後文内多少还会叙述其功能 01/18 02:04
35F:→ demonhom:若以前後文明显地看得出其功能 且该物件亦为习知元件 01/18 02:05
36F:→ demonhom:以小弟之见解 猜想应该可以考虑不加"electrically" 01/18 02:06
37F:→ demonhom:以稍稍扩大权利要求项之范围 (若审查官有意见 再补即可) 01/18 02:08
38F:→ forcomet:就我以前得知的~加electrically是台湾从电性连接翻的~而 01/18 23:28
39F:→ forcomet:电性连接是因为有人觉得"不是只是连接而已"所以出现电性 01/18 23:30
40F:→ forcomet:连接这个词~这是我以前好奇问一些资深从业人员得到的答案 01/18 23:31
41F:推 thubo:推!!! 01/22 01:51