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

AMERICAN CALCAR, INC.

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.

AND HONDA OF AMERICA MANUFACTURING, INC.,

Defendants-Cross Appellants.

 

Decided: June 27, 2011

 

關於爭議專利的“identifying one of the plurality of providers in response to the vehicle condition”和“selecting at least one service provider for servicing the vehicle when the vehicle needs a service”

 

CAFC認為“In response to” connotes that the second event occur in reaction to the first event. The language of the claim itself suggests that when a vehicle condition is detected, the processing element identifies a provider automatically as opposed to requiring further user interaction. Further, the specification fails to disclose any embodiment that requires any type of user interaction prior to identification of a service provider. See, e.g., ’928 patent, col.10 l.68-col.11 l.5. Thus, the court properly construed the claim terms “in response to” and “when” to require a cause-and-effect relationship.

 

心得：In response to和when的ordinary meaning是一對一的因果關係，排除其他事件的影響，可以採用upon the occurrence of (IGT v. Bally, Decided: October 6, 2011)、in accordance with、based on來取得較大的解釋範圍(允許其他intervening event)，或是加上intervening event的實施例來涵蓋較大的解釋範圍