認真做專利 希望所有的專利工程師 都能認真做專利

21愛的鼓勵 0訂閱站台

USC 112第二段通常被簡稱為definiteness requirement
不合乎要求的就是專利保護範圍indefinite

35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2 requires that the specificationof a patent “conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out anddistinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as hisinvention.”

 

This court has applied the definiteness requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,¶ 2 in numerous circumstances. ...
(HALLIBURTON ENERGYSERVICES, INC., vs M-I LLC, CAFC 2008)

根據法官的標準
要以indefinite來使專利無效頗有難度

Of course, claims are not indefinite merely becausethey present a difficult task of claim construction…Nevertheless, this standardis met where an accused infringer shows by clear and convincing evidence that askilled artisan could not discern the boundaries of the claim based on theclaim language, the specification, and the prosecution history, as well as herknowledge of the relevant art area.

法官也舉了幾個成功的例子
第一項就是means-plus-function
第三項指的是形容詞 (estheticly pleasing)

For example, we have held claims indefinite where aclaim recites means-plus-function elements without disclosing correspondingstructure in the specification, Biomedino, LLC v. Waters Techs. Corp.,490 F.3d 946, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2007), includes a numeric limitation withoutdisclosing which of multiple methods of measuring that number should be used, HoneywellInt’l, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 341 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2003),and contains a term that is “completely dependent on a person’s subjectiveopinion,” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1350. We have also stated that a claimcould be indefinite if a term does not have proper antecedent basis where suchbasis is not otherwise present by implication or the meaning is not reasonablyascertainable.

是否indefinite並不是難以界定範圍就足以判定
必須參照其他的證據

所以要以indefinite來攻擊
其對象最好是
(1)名詞...必須先證明這個名詞是means plus function
(2)主觀判斷的形容詞(必須是由該領域的專業知識來判斷,可能需要證人作證,knowledge of the relevant art area)

本案有關的是一個程度性質的形容詞(fragile)
法官認為必須是語意模糊不清而且無法再修正(amendable,限縮吧)
一般而言
上位的名詞還是可以再往下位修正
所以除非先證明其為means plus function
很難以indefinite來攻擊
但是形容詞沒有上位下位的概念
就有機會以indefinite來攻擊

In this case, the district court found that theasserted claims, which contained the limitation that the drilling fluid be a“fragile gel,” were indefinite. “Only claims ‘not amenable to construction’ or‘insolubly ambiguous’ are indefinite.” Datamize, 417 F.3d at 1347(citing Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1353(Fed. Cir. 2003); Honeywell, 341 F.3d at 1338; Exxon Research,265 F.3d at 1375). Because we conclude that neither Halliburton’s proposeddefinition nor any other possible construction resolves the ambiguity in thescope of the term “fragile gel,” we agree with the district court that claimscontaining that term are indefinite.