實證研究目標與方法

本論文實證目標在於觀察 Phillips 一案後，聯邦巡迴上訴法院在後 續案子中，如何解讀並且適用此案關於解釋申請專利範圍的真意，以及持 續觀察解釋申請專利範圍推翻率等相關指標，並且剖析後 Phillips 案時 代解釋申請專利趨勢，給予專利撰寫或涉訟人應對之建議，評析本文認為 較合適之解釋申請專利範圍方式，研究重點羅列於下：

(1)客觀的基礎分析上，持續觀察整體申請專利範圍系爭用語的推翻率，

以及申請專利範圍解釋被推翻對計算整體案件被推翻的影響比率，是 否有上升或下降的趨勢。結果得與 Phillips 案前的案件實證研究數據 做比較。

(2)主觀分析部份，研究 Phillips 案後，上訴案件中在解釋申請專利範圍 的「方法」與「決定性證據來源」分布情形？觀察是否其隨著法官以 及時間因素有特別傾向以及變動；最後並特別觀察所有足以影響案件 結果的申請專利範圍解釋的變動中，「方法」或「證據來源」的轉變情 形。綜合從上述研究中評析 Phillips 案對後案之影響。

(3)另外附帶觀察後案是否有跟隨 Phillips 中兩個較為明確的指示：「解 釋申請專利範圍非必要否則不得以維持專利有效性方向解釋」以及「一 個實施例不必然限制專利範圍」。

(4)綜合所有實證的結果，提出本文認為較為合適的解釋申請專利範圍方 法，並於最後一節中，整理出 Phillips 案時代的解釋申請專利範圍趨 勢，並給予專利撰寫人以及涉訟人應對策略。

第二項 實證研究方法

(1)資料範圍與資料收集：

蒐集從Phillips案後，2005 年 7 月 13 日至 2007 年 7 月 13 日兩 年間，所有引Phillips案並且針對申請專利範圍解釋作重新審理(de

novo)的聯邦巡迴上訴法院共 70 個案件。¹¹⁹於Westlaw法律資料庫中蒐 集，包含所有可引述為前案與不可引述為前案之案件，但是不包含Rule 36 Affirmance案件。

收集之資料包含：

A.案件基本資料：日期、案號、案件名稱、一審地院、上訴人、判決 結果。

B.法官資料：主筆法官、所有聽審法官、協同法官、反對意見法官。

C.解釋申請專利範圍資料：申請專利範圍系爭語、申請專利範圍解釋 個數、申請專利範圍解釋變動數目、判決結果改變是否源自申請專 利範圍解釋變動。

D.其他：是否遵照 Phillips 中兩個明確的判決指示、引述 Phillips 案之段落。

E.主觀分析中的指標資料。

所有的資料，收編於 Microsoft Access 資料庫系統中，以利後續 統計比對。

(2)客觀基礎分析方法：

將資料收集而得之推翻案件數以及推翻解釋申請專利範圍作比例 上的計算，並與歷史文獻結果做比較，比對 Phillips 案前後狀況，照

看是否出現特殊變化。

(3)方法論以及決定性證據來源主觀分析方法：

本文實證靈魂即在於對於解釋申請專利範圍的主觀分析，何以以 主觀分析稱之？因此此分類研究方法，目標不在於得出精確的推翻率 等絕對數據，而是研究不同方法論以及證據來源適用之間的相對結果。

本文以「方法論」與「決定性證據來源」設計了兩套指標。

「方法論」指標計有兩類，延續著在前章節提到的現今在解釋申

119 搜尋關鍵字：”415 F.3d 1303” & “de novo” & DA(AFT 7/13/2005 & BEF 13/7/2007。

請專利範圍領域裡無可避免的分歧方法論：一類為「專利說明書優先 2005 年的Ocean Innovations Inc. v. Archer案在解釋系爭用語「漂 浮單位」(floatation unites)¹²⁰；「申請專利範圍通常涵義優先方法」

(claim ordinary meaning-based)的代表案例則如同 2005 年的Joseph V. Kapusta v. Gale Corporation案中解釋系爭用語「手能握住大小 的箱子」(hand-grip size case)¹²¹。

120. Ocean Innovations Inc. v. Archer., 143 Fed.Appx 336 (2005). 引述解釋申請專利範圍如下：

With those principles in mind, we turn to the term “floatation units” in the '833 patent. Doing so, we conclude that one skilled in the art would understand the term to be referring to units that are hollow as well as airtight. The very first sentence of the patent characterizes the overall invention of the '833 patent as a “floating, drive-on dry dock assembly for small craft [that] is assembled from two kinds of hollow floatation units.”'833 patent, abstract (emphasis added). This communicates to one skilled in the art that a characteristic of a “floatation unit” in the invention of the '833 patent is that it is hollow.

Continuing, the '833 patent's specification describes the claimed floatation units with reference to prior art devices that also contain hollow units. The “Background of the Invention” section of the patent describes the prior art with reference to U.S. Pat. Nos. 3,824,664 and 4,603,962. According to the '833 patent's specification, “[t]hese patents describe hollow cubical units[.]”'833 patent, col. 1, ll.

21-24 (emphasis added). In particular, the prior art units were “provided with bungholes so that the units could be partially flooded to lower the water line of some or all of the units.” Id. col. 1, ll.

28-32.

Most importantly, the “Summary of the Invention” section of the patent states: The dock is

“assembled from a combination of tall and short, hollow, air-tight floatation units.” Id. col 1, ll. 66-67 (emphasis added). Finally, in the preferred embodiment “all of the floatation units 12a-l and 14 a-g are hollow and air tight.” Id. col. 3, ll. 27-28 (emphasis added). In the preferred embodiment, the tall floatation units (12a-l) are described as being “substantially similar to that shown in U.S. Pat. Nos.

3,824,644 and 4,604, 962[.]”'833 patent, col. 3, ll. 31-34. These are the same two patents previously described in the Background of the Invention section as containing “hollow” units that can be flooded with water. See id. col. 1, ll. 22-24.

...That argument, however, presumes to know the meaning of “floatation units” to one skilled in the art-which is the very issue at hand. We do not think that to construe the “floatation units” as hollow is importing a limitation into the claims when the specification makes clear that hollowness is an inherent characteristic of the “floatation units” in the claimed invention.

121 Joseph V. Kapusta v. Gale Corporation, 155 Fed Appx .518 (2005).引述解釋申請專利範圍如下：

「決定性證據來源」，則為本文之創新指標，也是與前述學者研究 最大不同之處。因本文認為，在方法論上將所有案子一分為二之分析

Starting with the claim language itself, we see no evidence from this source to support the court's size limitations. The claim states that the test circuit is mounted in “a hand-grip size case,” implying that the case is capable of being gripped in the hand of a normal person, and not of a size with specific dimensions. The straightforward mechanical technology of the invention and the understandable claim language give that meaning to this term. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314 (“In some cases, the ordinary meaning of claim language as understood by a person of skill in the art may be readily apparent even to lay judges, and claim construction in such cases involves little more than the application of the widely accepted meaning of commonly understood words.”). “Hand-grip” means what it says, i.e., capable of being gripped by the normal hand. The claim language does not imply a departure from that meaning.

The specification also does not suggest any reason to deviate from the ordinary and customary meaning by imparting dimensions to the term. The specification consistently refers to the instrument as serving “in the hands of an operator.”'663 patent, col. 1, ll. 63-65, col. 2, ll. 34-36. However, nowhere does the specification explicitly or implicitly ascribe numerical limitations to the case embodying the instrument. In fact, when mentioning the hand-grip size case, the specification states only that the case is “of preferred hand-grip size,” suggesting that the dimensions of the case being of hand-grip size, while preferred, are not inflexible. The specification further mentions that the operator will “grasp the primary instrument,” yet that description does not suggest any specific numerical dimensions of the case. '663 patent, col. 6, ll. 22-25. In the few instances where the specification alludes to either the “hand-grip size case” or to grasping the instrument, it does not reference any dimensions. Because numerical dimensions are absent in the specification, it was improper for the district court to construe the claim term with the lower limit dimensions.

The district court stated that it established the size dimensions of the “hand-grip size case” from “a preferred embodiment described in the specifications and shown in the drawings....” Claim Construction Order, at 5. It further appears to have determined the meaning of the “of a rectangular”

shape limitation solely from figures 4-7 because that is the only place in the patent that suggests such a shape. However, we cannot accept the district court's analysis because case law is well established that, while a specification should be used to interpret the meaning of a claim, it should not be used to import unnecessary limitations into the claims. See Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. In particular, we have acknowledged that claims must not necessarily be restricted to those embodiments disclosed in the specification, even if a patent describes only a single embodiment. As we stated in Phillips,“although the specification often describes very specific embodiments of the invention, we have repeatedly warned against confining the claims to those embodiments ... In particular, we have expressly rejected the contention that if a patent describes only a single embodiment, the claims of the patent must be construed as being limited to that embodiment.” Id.

Here, the district court expressly ascertained the size limitations from a preferred embodiment and improperly construed the term to incorporate those limitations. The specification states that the figures are shown “for illustrative purposes” and thus the figures do not restrict the scope of the claims to that which is shown in the drawings. See'663 patent, col. 3, ll. 66-67. The specification also states that figures 4, 5, and 6 depict “one of the featured companion test instruments,” further suggesting that the scope of the claims should not be restricted exclusively to those figures. Id. at col.

5, ll. 3-5. Because the specification does not indicate that the embodiment depicted in the figures is meant to be the only embodiment, and in fact implies otherwise, the claim term should not be limited to specific dimensions established from the figures.

The prosecution history also does not provide support for the addition of dimensions to the

“hand-grip size case.” On appeal from a rejection by the examiner, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”) rejected applicant's broad argument that the invention is distinguished over the prior art because it is “portable,” but added that “there is no teaching or suggestion in [the references cited upon which the rejection was made] of a hand grip size case and therefore we will not sustain this rejection....” Applicant thereafter amended claims from being only portable to incorporate the language specifying “a hand-grip size case in which said test circuit is mounted” to put the claims in condition for allowance. The BPAI implied that the invention was distinguishable over the cited prior art by the inclusion of a “hand-grip size case,” but the BPAI did not ascribe any lower size dimensions to the case.

是不足的，因除了在程序上要了解法官處理申請專利範圍解釋的決策 過程之外，更要觀察最後影響解釋申請專利範圍之決定性證據來源—

意指在判決內容之中最具有領導性的證據來源，而領導性的證據來源 往往對最後解釋申請專利範圍的結果產生最重大的影響，故以決定性 證據來源稱之。

在設計的考量上，雖然我們理解證據來源可以分為內部證據包含 申請專利範圍本身、說明書與申請歷史文件、以及外部證據包含字典、

科學協定、專家證人證詞等，但是在判決之中往往並非只會對單一證 據來源作論述，所以「決定性證據來源」指標難以設計「細分」成為 例如：專利說明書、申請歷史文件、字典等指標，故本文採四階式「決 定性證據來源」指標分述如下：

指標 4 指標 3

外部證據 指標 2

指標 1 內部證據

四階指標從 1~4 如上圖所示，數字越小表示「決定性證據來源」

越靠近內部證據，而數字越大則表示「決定性證據來源」越遠離內部 證據，以下就四種指標分述之：

(1)指標 1：決定性證據來源最靠近內部證據，來自申請專利範圍文字 本身、專利說明書以及申請歷史文件。

(2)指標 2：決定性證據來源向外部證據靠了一些，法院有從來自於字 典等外部證據理解申請專利範圍通常涵義，但是最後決定 性的解釋，主要還是來自於內部證據。

(3)指標 3：跨越中線，較靠攏外部證據，其與指標 2 的不同之處在於，

申請專利範圍解釋的通常涵義假設性較強，較無受到內部證 據的加以限制。

(4)指標 4：最靠攏外部證據，與指標 3 的區別在於，指標 4 的案件會 明確點名是從何種「字典」或哪位「專家證人」的意見來解 釋申請專利範圍，區分的目的在於要觀察是否在 Phillips 案之後，因為 Phillips 案抨擊 Texas Digital 案中過度提 高字典的地位，而導致後來的案件可能不敢再「明示」引用 字典或專家證人證詞來對申請專利範圍下決定性的解釋。

最後將兩種指標做交叉分析，就兩種指標組合而成的八種情況分 布，理解兩者之間的互動關係，才能真正理解釋申請專利範圍的整體

最後將兩種指標做交叉分析，就兩種指標組合而成的八種情況分 布，理解兩者之間的互動關係，才能真正理解釋申請專利範圍的整體