作者blueson (银河的承诺)
看板Patent
标题Re: [问题] "integrally formed"的限定范围
时间Sun Oct 16 22:35:19 2011
※ 引述《crazyM (知性与野性兼具)》之铭言：
: 若以中文描述“A和B一体成型“
: 在我认知中其限定范围为A,B同材质，并以一种不可分割的方式相连
: 包含情况可能为：
: 1.A,B属於同一个塑胶射出成品
: 2.A,B都是某金属并焊接在一起（没有他种金属）
: 一体成型一般翻成"integrally formed"
: 但今天被告知"integrally formed"的范围比中文的一体成型大
: EX:金属片焊接於PCB 可以说金属片与PCB为integrally formed（不同材质）
: 请问这种说法大家接受吗？
一般而言，"integrally formed"的字面意义会大於"one-piece formed"
然而在美国专利诉讼中，疑似侵权者会从内部证据中找出有力支持以主张
"integrally formed"要限缩为"one-piece formed"，藉此达成产品无侵权
除非说明书或答辩中有清楚指明"integrally formed"有包括separable的描述
否则"integrally formed"很容易被解释为"one-piece formed"
个人以为one-piece、two-piece、unitary、separate的解释空间会比较小
connect、join、coupled、link、affix的解释空间会比较大
总之，独立项还是尽可能不要提到"一体成型"的概念
在附属项或说明书中提到即可，且说明书中最好不要只有"一体成型"的实施例
至於claim到底该如何解读，还是得回归个案，以下案例仅供参考：
Burns, Morris & Stewart Ltd. Partnership v. Endura Products, Inc.
construing "integrally formed" and "formed integrally" to mean
'connected together so as to make up a single complete piece or unit,
or so as to work together as a single complete piece or unit, and
so as to be incapable of being easily dismantled without destroying
the integrity of the piece or unit.'
Safety Rail Source, LLC v. Bilco Co.
construing "integrally connecting" to mean 'joined together so as to
make up a single, complete, and substantially permanent piece or unit,
such that the connected components become an essential part of the
complete unit, and such that the complete unit is incapable of being
easily dismantled without destroying the unit'
Storus Corp. v. Restoration Hardware, Inc.
construing "integrally formed" and "formed integrally" to mean
'formed with material common to the rest of the unit, and the connection
having no mechanical joints'
construing "one-piece" as 'having no parts that separate from the unit
during normal operation and containing no parts that are not integrally
formed'
Scientific Specialties Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
construing "integral" to mean operating as a single unit, and not
requiring components made from a onepiece structure where the
specification use of the term "integral" showed that it referred to the
assembly as being handled as a single unit rather than being made form
a single structure, also noting that the applicant did not rely on a
single structure argument to distinguish its invention over prior art
--
※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 59.115.180.170
1F：→ forcomet:非常推! 特别是第一段! 尤其是你的修改是为了获取专利时 10/16 23:26
2F：→ forcomet:更可能是限制~美国有个判例就谈到修改的部分 原告坚持从 10/16 23:28
3F：→ forcomet:字面上解读 但是法官从答辩过程中找到证据 虽然字面广义 10/16 23:29
4F：→ forcomet:解读可以很大 但是搭配温开水後 就变小了 10/16 23:29
5F：→ forcomet:不一定要明确指出有包含separable的描述 只要你的答辩中 10/16 23:31
6F：→ forcomet:有排除掉 那你就会被限缩, ex:引证资料由2个元件搭配一起 10/16 23:32
7F：→ forcomet:但是你答辩强调integrally formed 然後审查委员接受 10/16 23:32
8F：→ forcomet:很大的机会就被限缩住了 即面字面上完全没改 10/16 23:33
9F：推 kaikai1112:推 10/17 07:22
10F：推 piglauhk:(－^－)ｄ 10/17 10:51
11F：推 Keyshawn:推。 10/17 11:42