小霞讲涉外 Part.8

美国专利中数值范围的侵权判定及用词讨论

 

 

作者：孔丽霞

 

问题1：

如果独权1中的数值范围为 8-10,那么7.9是否算侵权呢？

回答：

Possibly, 但是由于独权中没有用 “about”，就给侵权者留下了一定的争辩空间，因此关于数值范围的限定，最好在说明书及权利要求中加上about这个词，这样在数值边界就会有一个wiggle room.

 

问题2：

如果原独权1中的数值范围为About 8-9，在答辩过程中申请人将独权1的范围修改为About 8.5-9, 那么7.9是否侵权呢？

回答：

Probably not.  Festo，申请人放弃了between 8~8.5 那么也放弃了7.9

 

Wiggle words: Approximately, about, substantially. 例如：表达方形时可以将“square-shaped”描述成“substantially square-shaped”; 这几个词在MPEP中属于Relative terminology, 这些词的使用不会导致claim的不清楚。 具体法条参考如下：

 

MPEP – 2173.05(b) Relative Terminology

The use of relative terminology in claim language, including terms of degree, does not automatically render the claim indefinite under35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Seattle Box Co., Inc. v. Industrial Crating & Packing, Inc., 731 F.2d 818, 221 USPQ 568 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Acceptability of the claim language depends on whether one of ordinary skill in the art would understand what is claimed, in light of the specification.

 

给大家两个参考案例

In Ex parte Bunting, Appeal No. 2014-006544 (March 13, 2017) the PTAB held that “a beam constructed substantially of mortar” was definite claim language. In this case, the specification did not provide a definition of “substantially.” The Appellant argued that many issued patents have claims that include words of approximation, and that many court cases affirm that this type of claim language is definite. The PTAB agreed with the Appellant and cited the dictionary definition of “substantially” in the Meriam-Webster dictionary.

As another example, in Ex parte Ogura, Appeal No. 2014-009489 (March 21, 2017), the claim language included "substantially perpendicular" to describe a spring in a suspension system.  The PTAB concluded that “substantially perpendicularly” was definite, despite the fact that the term “substantially” was not even found in the specification.