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

THE CHAMBERLAIN GROUP, INC. v. TECHTRONIC INDUSTRIES CO. LTD. 

(Fed. Cir., January 25, 2017)

 

爭議專利U.S. Patent 7,224,275

Claim 1:

A movable barrier operator comprising:

a controller having a plurality of potential operational status conditions defined, at least in part, by a plurality of operating states;

a movable barrier interface that is operably coupled to the controller;

a wireless status condition data transmitter that is operably coupled to the controller, wherein the wireless status condition data transmitter transmits a status condition signal that:

corresponds to a present operational status condition defined, at least in part, by at least two operating states from the plurality of operating states; and

comprises an identifier that is at least relatively unique to the movable barrier operator, such that the status condition signal substantially uniquely identifies the movable barrier operator.

 

(1)

爭議重點在於controller having XX conditions

關於having的字義

是只能由內部產生 (這些conditions只能由controller內部產生)

或是可以由外界輸入 (這些conditions也可以由外界輸入controller)

 

地方法院日為只能由內部產生

CAFC認為可以由外界輸入 (有實施例支持)

 

了解到having會有這樣的爭端

以後撰稿時除了如本案以資料處理來界定硬體的範圍

(以having XX conditions來表示sensor的存在)

(如此就可以用一個claim涵蓋<內部產生>和<外界輸入>兩個實施例)

最好另外再就此二實施例分別擬定claim

(也就是不要偷懶，懶得多寫claim)

 

(2)

答辯理由不要亂槍打鳥

不是越多越好

 

此爭議專利在審查時

審查委員找到一篇前案

揭露了<外界輸入>的技術內容 (sensor非內建於controller)

專利權人未就sensor的位置進行答辯

而是修改其他的limitation

因此CAFC沒有限縮having的解釋範圍