2003
CAFC
Intel v VIA
U.S.Patent No. 6,006,291(patent in suit)
Claim 1 is theonly independent claim of the ’291 patent. Claim 1 reads:
1. An interfacefor between a system memory controller and a peripheral device, said interfacecomprising:
an element adaptedto selectively write data directly to said peripheral device at one ofat least two rates; and
a selectiondevice adapted to determine whether data is able to be written directlyto said peripheral device, said device adapted to allow an initial and asubsequent transaction and to control whether or not a subsequenttransaction occurs by indicating whether or not a write buffer in theperipheral device is able to accept sufficient information after the initialblock has transferred.
『After a one-day claim construction hearing, the districtcourt held that the recitations in claim 1 were means-plus-function limitations and that the structure corresponding to the functions was the core logic of acomputer adapted to perform Fast Write. Intel, C 99-03062, slip op. at 3 (orderdenying VIA’s motion for summary judgment).』
法官先確認兩個limitations都是means plus function.
『We agree with the district court that the core logic of acomputer modified to perform Fast Write is the corresponding structure for thefunctions recited.』
『Thus, the core logic, as described in the specificationand adapted both to write directly and to react to WBF#, is the structurecorresponding to the two functions recited in claim 1.』
『Modification of the core logic is the element that isadapted to write data directly to a peripheral device. ’291 patent, col. 7, ll.11-12 and col. 8, l. 62-col. 9, l. 10. The core logic is also adapted todetermine whether data can be written directly to the peripheral device, dependingon whether the signal WBF# (write buffer full) is asserted or de-asserted. Id.col. 7, ll. 31-37 and col. 10, ll. 25-29. Thus, the core logic, as described inthe specification and adapted both to write directly and to react to WBF#, isthe structure corresponding to the two functions recited in claim 1.』
claim中的兩個組成要件的對應結構都是core logic.
『Here, the specification of the ’291 patent includes threediagrams, 35 signal charts and a detailed written description explaining the invention.A generic description of the core logic, as adapted to practice Fast Writepursuant to the specification, is not inadequate solely because no circuitry isdisclosed on how to modify the core logic.』
法官強調爭議專利有三張示意圖（都和core logic無關），35張時序圖，還有說明書詳細的解釋，如此推論出即使沒有揭露如何修改corelogic的電路圖，光是提到corelogic也已足夠。
『We hold that the ’291 patent is not indefinite merelybecause no specific circuitry is disclosed to show the modification.』
本案之承審法官認為，不能因為沒有揭露電路就算是界定不明確，還找了前案來支持此一說法。
『For example, in S3, Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp., 259 F.3d 1363, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2001),this court held that a “selector” was an adequate corresponding structure forperforming the “selectively receiving” function even though neither the electronicstructure of the selector nor details of its electronic operation weredescribed in the specification.』
但是這個前案的means for selectively receiving對應的是說明書中的selector，而selector被解釋成multiplexer（” S3presented evidence that a selector is a standard electronic componentwhose structure is well known in this art, and that such standard componentsare usually represented in the manner shown in the '279 patent. The inventor ofthe '279 patent and the expert witnesses testified that persons of skill inthis field would readily recognize that the selector as shown in thespecification is an electronic device such as a simple multiplexer, whosestructure is well known.”，2003，S3,Inc. v. NVIDIA Corp）。
S3的邏輯是，multiplexer是standard electronic component whose structure is well known in this art，重點在於structure iswell known in this art。法官的重點卻成了” The law is clear that patentdocuments need not include subject matter that is known in the field of theinvention and is in the prior art, for patents are written for personsexperienced in the field of the invention.”也就是subject matter that is known in the field。差別在於前者是要結構眾所皆知，後者是要名稱眾所皆知。
看看後來的判例怎麼說的
2007
Biomedino v Waters Technologies
『Theinquiry is whether one of skill in the art would understand the specificationitself to disclose a structure, not simply whether that person would be capableof implementing a structure. Med. Instrumentation, 344 F.3d at 1212 (citing Atmel, 198 F.3d at 1382). Accordingly, a barestatement that known techniques or methods can be used does not disclosestructure.』
重要的是disclosing a structure，而不是capable of implementing a structure。以此標準來看2003，Intel v VIA一案，說明書以35張時序圖敎大家怎麼modifyingthe core logic實在不算是disclosing a structure。
心得
若是自己申請的電路專利,保險一點,還是把電路圖揭露清楚比較好;若是解讀別人的專利,就要了解法官可能會有怎樣的標準來判斷.
文章定位：
