產品製程請求項之解讀方式

101年10月號道法法訊 (246)		DEEP & FAR
產品製程請求項之解讀方式-(Fed. Cir.2007-1400) (十二)	陳榮福專利代理人 ‧中國醫藥學院藥學系學士 ‧日本福岡大學生藥學所碩士 ‧陽明大學醫學藥理所博士

專利權人主張依照另一種不同方法塑造可堪媲美難以區分之鞋內底墊，依然侵犯第26 項([1])。本院駁回專利權人之請求。本院於Atlantic Thermoplastics解釋產品製程請求項係受該製程所限制([2])。此種產品製程請求項之妥適解讀規則，可在最高法院之意見中廣泛地獲得支持([3])。於此等案例中，最高法院持續指出產品製程請求項中製品定義之製程條件，作為可強制執行之限制。此外，美國關稅與專利上訴法院([4])及美國索賠法院專利 ([5])等本院之前身法院之拘束判例，均遵循此相同規則。本院之姊妹法庭，亦依照定義製程條件限制產品製程之請求項之規則 ([6])。

[1]. Id. at 838.

[2]. Id. at 846-7.

[3]. See Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U.S. 486, 493 (1877) (“The process detailed is thereby made as much a part of the invention as are the materials of which the product is composed.”); Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis, 102 U.S. 222, 224 (1880) (“[T]o constitute infringement of the patent, both the material of which the dental plate is made . . . and the process of constructing the plate . . . must be employed.”); Merrill v. Yeomans, 94 U.S. 568 (1877); Cochrane v. Badische Anilin & Soda Fabrik, 111 U.S. 293 (1884) (BASF); The Wood-Paper Patent, 90 U.S. 566, 596 (1874); Plummer v. Sargent, 120 U.S. 442 (1887); Gen. Elec. Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp., 304 U.S. 364 (1938); see also Atl. Thermoplastics, 970 F.2d at 839-42 (discussing each of these cases).

[4]. (see In re Hughes, 496 F.2d 1216, 1219 (CCPA 1974) (acknowledging that “true product claims” are “broader” in scope than product-by-process claims)),

[5]. (see Tri-Wall Containers v. United States, 408 F.2d 748, 751 (Ct. Cl. 1969)),

[6]. See, e.g., Hide-Ite Leather v. Fiber Prods., 226 F. 34, 36 (1st Cir. 1915) (“It is also a well-recognized rule that, although a product has definite characteristics by which it may be identified apart from the process, still, if in a claim for the product it is not so described, but is set forth in the terms of the process, nothing can be held to infringe the claim which is not made by the process.”); Paeco, Inc. v. Applied Moldings, Inc., 562 F.2d 870, 876 (3d Cir. 1977)