product-by-process claims 的权利范围解译，法官们的意见是分歧的。 原则上仅以物来解释， 但从本案的情况来看，product 本身是不具有新颖性，因为product是已存在（第1种请求 项的解释方式）。 : 没有人想到可以使保丽龙球过筛而使制作保丽龙球一定会产生的粉末被筛除 : 而提高保丽龙球颗粒群的用途 (因不具有粉末杂质，所以更好用之类的...) 当然也许专利权人可以主张，习知技术的product包含粉未，它的专利的product不包含粉 未（第2种请求项的解释方式），虽然此论点可以避开新颖性的问题，但只要你的产品包 含些许粉未，就不侵权。 以此案而言，个人以为应该要限定在方法，因为习知的product与本案的product间的差异 ，在於方法本身而不是物本身（第3种请求项的解释方式），但你的制法不同，所以也不 侵权。 多一些证据，证明该行业者都知道「不包含粉未的product」是可推知的，大家已知的， 只是做不出来，那麽该专利连第2种解释方式也已不具进步性，专利权人要留下专利只剩 下的就是第3种解释方式了。 ===== 【权利范围】 One panel of the Federal Circuit held that a product-by-process claim is not limited by the steps recited therein (the Scripps panel), whereas another panel of the Federal Circuit (the Atlantic Thermoplastics panel) held that product-by-process claims only cover products that are produced by the process steps recited in the claim. That is, the Atlantic Thermoplastics panel held that product-by-process claims do not cover an identical product made by a different process. product-by-process claims 的权利范围解译，法官们的意见是分歧的， the Scripps panel 认为不应仅限定於 process 本身，而the Atlantic Thermoplastics panel 则认 为应限定於process 本身。我最好的解译可自行参考Newman法官的不同意见书。 其他： Thus, a key inquiry for construction of the product-by-process claims is whether the claimed product was distinguished over the prior art based on the product characteristics, or whether the process limitations were added because applicant could not otherwise distinguish over the prior art. In the former case, the court could construe the claims at issue in accordance with either Scripps or Atlantic Thermoplastics. In the latter case, the claims at issue would most likely be construed as being limited to the process steps recited therein. 关键在於 product 本身具有可专利性，但用 product-by-process claims 来加以限定； 或是 product 本身为习知，但 the claimed product and the prior art product 间具 有非显而易知的差异（unobvious difference），如 e.g., an unexpected result with respect to one or more properties 。 --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 61.216.168.48