请参考下述文章。 http://ppt.cc/7lyS 以物来解释 The Scripps Case In the decision of Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 18 USPQ 2nd 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1991), a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit (Circuit Judges Newman and Markey and District Judge Beer) held that the "product-by-process" claims at issue were properly interpreted as product claims, independent of how the product was made. In this regard, the court reasoned that Scripps distinguished the claimed product over the prior art based on product characteristics (such as potency and purity) as opposed to the particular process (i.e., chromatographic adsorption to a specific monoclonal antibody) used to accomplish the separation, and was therefore patentable independent of the process used to make the product. 该product本身已与习知的product有差异，process只是用来定义该物，而非用来区隔习 知的product。 以方法来解释 The Atlantic Thermoplastics Case In the decision of Atlantic Thermoplastics Corp. v. Faytex Corp., 23 USPQ 2nd 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1992), a subsequent panel of the Federal Circuit (Circuit Judges Archer, Michel and Rader) held that product-by-process claims are limited in an infringement inquiry by the process terms recited therein. This panel of the Federal Circuit declined to follow the prior ruling of the court in Scripps. 该判决认为，应以process来解释该product，同时declined to follow the prior ruling of the court in Scripps，也就是说最新的判决是支持以process来限定权利范 围。 表面上看来Scripps和Atlantic这两个案子的结论相反，但从习知技术的范围来看，两个 案子的判决不矛盾。因此才会有Newman法官的不同意见书，「视习知技术范围来决定权利 范围」。但以後会怎麽发展只能等以後的判决而定，但个人以为Newman法官的见解满好的 ，应该是以後判决的方向。 例如在地院的The Tropix Case --

※ 发信站: 批踢踢实业坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.134.238.126