Boss Control Inc v. Bombardier Inc (Fed. Cir. 205)
Boss有一篇專利關於電器的安全性裝置
An interrupt system which is operative to interrupt the transmission of power from a power supply to an electrical load, comprising:
a controller, wherein said controller is operative to selectively supply or interrupt power to the load,
a code-providing device detachably operatively connected with the controller, wherein said code-providing device is operable to provide an authorization code to said controller when operatively connected thereto, and wherein said controller is operative to supply power to the load responsive to the code-providing device providing said authorization code to the controller, and
wherein the controller is operative to monitor the operative connection with said code-providing device, and wherein said controller is operative to interrupt power to the load responsive to said code-providing device being operatively disconnected from said controller.
爭執點在於interrupt
這是很尋常的用字
很少會有人去考慮這個字有什麼問題
就是”關掉”shut off啊
但是
在此專利說明書的prior art中提到
In the prior art, means have been provided to prevent unauthorized usage of electrical appliances and similar electrically operated devices, primarily through key operated electro-mechanical circuit interrupt devices. However, such devices conventionally provide for on-off control only, meaning that the device completely interrupts the flow of electrical power to the appliance while in the interrupt or "locked" state, and it connects the appliance to the electrical supply in the operative or "unlocked" state.
習知的interrupt是單純的開-關的控制
而在Summary of the invention提到
In accordance with one aspect of the invention the appliance or device retains a connection to the power supply while in interrupt or "locked" mode; complete power shutoff only occurs when a preset electrical current is exceeded, thus allowing operation of the appliance's auxiliary electrical equipment while the interrupt device is in the interrupt mode.
這個發明的interrupt在某些狀況下並不是完全shutoff
法官認為
實施例的說明支持Summary對interrupt的描述
In the preferred embodiment, when the appliance 11 is in the interrupt mode, auxiliary functions, such as a clock and/or light, remain operational, so long as their combined current draw is less than the "current threshold". When an unauthorized person attempts to use the heating functions of the appliance 11, which draw a comparatively greater current, the current threshold will be exceeded and the relay contacts 20 or 21 will be opened, disconnecting the main power supply from the appliance while still supplying power to the microcontroller 26 through DC power supply 25.
It will be understood that in the described embodiments the device in the interrupt mode does not actually cut off power to the appliance, i.e. interrupt the main power supply, until the current threshold is exceeded by turning on a high current-drawing component of the appliance 11, such as a heating element.
Thus unauthorized attempts to use the appliance in the described embodiment wherein the interrupt device is operatively connected with a stove, are immediately obvious from the fact that the auxiliary clock and light functions of the stove no longer operate.
'206 patent, col. 6, II. 3-23. This description confirms that, in the context of the invention, interruption of power to an electrical device involves two stages: a first stage in which auxiliary functions remain operational so long as a combined current draw is less than a current threshold, and a second stage in which power to the device is completely disconnected in response to the current threshold being exceeded.
因此法官判定
此專利的interrupt不是一般認知的單純shutoff
而必須是兩階段的控制
其依據為以下：
To interpret "interrupt," we first consult "the intrinsic evidence of record, i.e., the patent itself, including the claims, the specification and, if in evidence, the prosecution history." Vitronics Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed.Cir.1996).
"Although words in a claim are generally given their ordinary and customary meaning, a patentee may choose to be his own lexicographer and use terms in a manner other than their ordinary meaning, as long as the special definition of the term is clearly stated in the patent specification or file history." Id.
"Thus, . . . it is always necessary to review the specification to determine whether the inventor has used any terms in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning. The specification acts as a dictionary when it expressly defines terms used in the claims or when it defines terms by implication." Id. In fact, the specification "is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term." Id.
However, "the court may also consider the prosecution history of the patent, if in evidence." Id. "In most situations, an analysis of the intrinsic evidence alone will resolve any ambiguity in a disputed claim term. In such circumstances, it is improper to rely on extrinsic evidence." Id.
心得：
此爭議專利
應該原本無心對interrupt下定義
只是單純描述在interrupt mode時有什麼功能
如此就被法院認定是defines terms by implication
專利權人可能心想
Interrupt mode最終還是要完全shut off power
所以就便宜行事叫做interrupt mode
然後在claim中以selectively supply or interrupt power來描述interrupt mode所做的事
敗筆在於prior art中提到一般的interrupt只是單純on-off控制
想要突顯發明的新穎性
結果呢
Prior art的敘述不會對獲得專利有任何幫助
反而在訴訟時成了砸了自己的腳的大石頭
魔鬼藏在哪裡呢?
claim中提到"interrupt powr to he load"
可是實施例中提到的是在"interrupt mode"時
有"disconnect the main pwer supply"
也就是說"關掉電源"這個動作
實施例中是使用disconnect
claim中使用的是interrupt
由於用字不一致
給了被告做文章的機會
偏偏Summary中提到的prior art用了interrupt這個字
還又對interrupt加以說明
因此有prior art與爭議案件對interrupt似乎有不同解釋的嫌疑
所以
Claim中有出現的term
最好不要在Prior art那一欄中有任何的詳細描述
說過去那個”term”是做什麼事
免得被法院限縮了自己的範圍
而claim中的term與實施例中的用字最好是一致
文章定位：
