THE MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
and
ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC.,
v.
ABACUS SOFTWARE,
and
COREL CORP. and COREL INC.,
and
MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
and
ROXIO, INC. and MGI SOFTWARE, INC
DECIDED: September 13, 2006
Patent at issue
U.S. Patent No. 4,500,919 (the “’919 patent”)
Claim 1 of the ‘919 patent, the only claim at issue in this appeal, describes the three steps as follows:
1. A system for reproducing a color original in a medium using a selected multiplicity of reproduction colorants, the system comprising in serial order:
a. a scanner for producing from said color original a set of three tristimulus appearance signals dependent on the colors in said original;
b. display means connected to the scanner for receiving the appearance signals and aesthetic correction circuitry for interactively introducing aesthetically desired alterations into said appearance signals to produce modified appearance signals; and
c. colorant selection mechanism for receiving said modified appearance signals and for selecting corresponding reproduction signals representing values of said reproducing colorants to produce in said medium a colorimetrically-matched reproduction.
主要的爭論在於aesthetic correction circuitry及colorant selection mechanism是否為means plus function。兩者皆無”means”出現，但結果截然不同。
『The phrase “colorant selection mechanism” is presumptively not subject to 112 ¶ 6 because it does not contain the term “means.” CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2002). However, a limitation lacking the term “means” may overcome the presumption against means-plus-function treatment if it is shown that “the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.’”』
沒有means，也可能是means plus function。
『We agree with the district court’s conclusion that the presumption here is overcome and that the phrase “colorant selection mechanism” should be construed as a means-plus-function limitation. The generic terms “mechanism,” “means,” “element,” and “device,” typically do not connote sufficiently definite structure.』
mechanism, element, device其實和means沒什麼不同
『In Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Int’l Trade Com’n, 161 F.3d 696 (Fed. Cir. 1998), we addressed the claim term “digital detector.” We contrasted the term “detector,” which recited sufficient structure to avoid 112 ¶ 6, with “generic structural term[s] such as ‘means,’ ‘element,’ or ‘device,’” which do not. Id. at 704. Similarly, in Lighting World, Inc. v. Birchwood Lighting, Inc., 382 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2004), we recognized that Section 112 ¶ 6 does not apply to “a term that is simply a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name of structure and is simply a substitute for the term ‘means for.’”』
動詞+"er"，視個案而定。digital detector(1998)被認為reciting sufficient structure(主要是為字典上有定義，且其定義與該專利內容有相符之處)；controller(2008)則因CAFC不確定而被發回重審(CAFC這次沒查字典，而要求證人作證)。(法院似乎有限縮專利權人權利範圍趨勢)
『For example, in Greenberg v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 91 F.3d 1580 (Fed. Cir. 1996), which involved a mechanical device, we held that 112 ¶ 6 did not apply to the term “detent mechanism,” because “the noun ‘[d]etent’ denotes a type of device with a generally understood meaning in the mechanical arts, even though the definitions are expressed in functional terms.”』
generally understood 或是 well known，即可克服means
『In contrast to the term “mechanism,” dictionary definitions establish that the term “circuitry,” by itself, connotes structure. Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, 408-09 (1968 ed.) (defining “circuit” as “the complete path of an electric current including any displacement current” and “circuitry” as “the detailed plan of an electric circuit or network (as of a radio or television receiver)”); see also Linear Tech. Corp. v. Impala Linear Corp., 379 F.3d 1311, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“Technical dictionaries, which are evidence of the understandings of persons of skill in the technical arts, plainly indicate that the term ‘circuit’ connotes structure….The Dictionary of Computing 75 (4th ed. 1996) defines ‘circuit’ as ‘the combination of a number of electrical devices and conductors that, when interconnected to form a conducting path, fulfill some desired function.’”); Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary 374, def. 9 (2d ed. 1998) (defining circuit as “the complete path of an electric current”); Rudolf F. Graf, Modern Dictionary of Electronics 116 (7th ed. 1999) (defining “circuit” as “[t]he interconnection of a number of devices in one or more closed paths to perform a desired electrical or electronic function”)』
circuit算是準structure。
『In two of our prior cases we concluded that the term “circuit,” combined with a description of the function of the circuit, connoted sufficient structure to one of ordinary skill in the art to avoid 112 ¶ 6 treatment. See Linear, 379 F.3d at 1320 (“[W]hen the structure-connoting term ‘circuit’ is coupled with a description of the circuit’s operation, sufficient structural meaning generally will be conveyed to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and § 112 ¶ 6 presumptively will not apply.”); Apex Inc. v. Raritan Computer, Inc., 325 F.3d 1364, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“[T]he term ‘circuit’ with an appropriate identifier such as ‘interface,’ ‘programming’ and ‘logic,’ certainly identifies some structural meaning to one of ordinary skill in the art.”). The claim language here too does not merely describe a circuit; it adds further structure by describing the operation of the circuit. The circuit’s input is “appearance signals” produced by the scanner; its objective is to “interactively introduce[e] aesthetically desired alterations into said appearance signals”; and its output is “modified appearance signals.” ‘919 patent, col. 15, ll. 29-41. This description of the operation of the circuit is sufficient to avoid 112 ¶ 6.』
circuit 之前有適當的電路操作的動作，或是如本案，circuit之後描述了電路的輸入、目的(功能?)、輸出，即可克服means。
文章定位：
