請參考下述文章。 http://ppt.cc/7lyS 以物來解釋 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. 該product本身已與習知的product有差異，process只是用來定義該物，而非用來區隔習 知的product。 以方法來解釋 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. 該判決認為，應以process來解釋該product，同時declined to follow the prior ruling of the court in Scripps，也就是說最新的判決是支持以process來限定權利範 圍。 表面上看來Scripps和Atlantic這兩個案子的結論相反，但從習知技術的範圍來看，兩個 案子的判決不矛盾。因此才會有Newman法官的不同意見書，「視習知技術範圍來決定權利 範圍」。但以後會怎麼發展只能等以後的判決而定，但個人以為Newman法官的見解滿好的 ，應該是以後判決的方向。 例如在地院的The Tropix Case --

※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) ◆ From: 220.134.238.126