民國92年2月6日修正公布、93年7月1日施行的專利法第56條第3項修正為:「發明專利權範圍,以說明書所載之申請專利範圍為準,於解釋申請專利範圍時,並得審酌發明說明及圖式。」主要係刪除「必要時」三個字,修正的立法理由:「按發明專利權範圍以說明書所載之申請專利範圍為準,申請專利範圍必須記載構成發明之技術,以界定專利權保護之範圍;此為認定有無專利侵權之重要事項。在解釋申請專利範圍時,發明說明及圖式係屬於從屬地位,未曾記載於申請專利範圍之事項,固不在保護範圍之內;惟說明書所載之申請專利範圍僅就請求保護範圍之必要敘述,既不應侷限於申請專利範圍之字面意義,也不應僅被作為指南參考而已,實應參考其發明說明及圖式,以瞭解其目的、作用及效果,此種參考並非如現行條文所定『必要時』始得為之,爰參考歐洲專利公約第69條規定之意旨修正為『於解釋申請專利範圍時,並得審酌發明說明及圖式』。」前述修正理由已明示發明專利的保護範圍不得侷限於申請專利範圍之文字,尚「應」審酌說明書及圖式中所載之目的、作用及效果據以解釋,而非申請專利範圍不明確而為「必要時」,始審酌之。何況,歐洲專利公約第69條係規定「說明書及圖式應用於(shall be used to)解釋申請專利範圍」,見後述分析。
1973年歐洲專利公約第69條第(1)項規定(註1):「歐洲專利或歐洲專利申請案的保護範圍應(shall)決定於申請專利範圍。然而,說明書及圖式應用於(shall be used to)解釋申請專利範圍。」各締約國另簽訂第69條的議定書(註2),內容如下:「第69條不得(should not be)被理解為歐洲專利的保護範圍係由申請專利範圍中之文字嚴格的文義予以確定,而說明書及圖式僅用於解釋申請專利範圍中含糊不清之處。而且不得(Nor should it be)被理解為申請專利範圍僅具有指導作用,而其實際保護範圍係該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者從說明書及圖式之內容所認為得擴展到專利權人所期望達到的範圍。申請專利範圍之解釋應介於前述二種極端觀點之間,既能提供專利權人合理之保護,亦能提供他人足夠之法律確定性。」
美國
美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院於2005年Phillips v. AWH Corp.案召開全院聯席聽證,對於申請專利範圍的解釋提出宣示性的見解:專利商標局專利審查時,必須「賦予申請專利範圍符合說明書之最寬廣合理的解釋」(giving claims their broadest reasonable construction)。該判決明確認可專利商標局所使用的「最寬廣合理的解釋」標準:「專利商標局解釋專利申請案的申請專利範圍時,不僅應以申請專利範圍中所載之用語為基礎,且應審酌該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者對於說明書的解釋,賦予申請專利範圍最寬廣合理的解釋。前述解釋方法係依專利商標局的細則37 CFR 1.75(d)(1)規定:申請案之申請專利範圍必須依循說明書其他部分中所載之發明,且申請專利範圍中所使用之用語及措辭必須在說明書中找到明確的支持基礎或先行基礎,故對於申請專利範圍中所載之用語的意義,可以審酌說明書予以確定(註3)。」
前述Phillips案已指出於審查階段解釋申請專利範圍的方法。至於核准專利後民事訴訟階段解釋申請專利範圍的方法,美國專利商標局35 U.S.C.112之補充審查指南指出:在涉及專利侵權及有效性之訴訟程序,已核准的申請專利範圍係被推定為明確而有效,不會被賦予最寬廣合理的解釋,而是依申請歷史檔案(申請及維護專利過程中的內部證據)解釋之。換句話說,對於已核准專利權之請求項,除非其用語的意義模糊而難以理解,否則法院不會認定該用語不明確。相對地,對於審查中之請求項,因不會將其推定為明確而有效,美國專利商標局的解釋可以與法院的解釋不同。在審查過程中,美國專利商標局應以最寬廣合理的方式解釋申請專利範圍,努力建立紀錄清楚呈現申請人所欲請求的範圍(註4)。美國法院亦明確表達其見解,在In re Morris案,法院判決:「在申請程序中專利商標局解釋申請案之申請專利範圍,不必與法院於專利侵權訴訟案中解釋申請專利範圍之方法相同。在申請程序中,對於申請專利範圍之用語,專利商標局賦予該用語最寬廣合理的解釋,係該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者經考量說明書所定義或所能提供之內容而得之啟示,從而明瞭[該用語]之通常意義(註5)。」依美國專利之司法訴訟實務,申請專利範圍之解釋係以說明書、申請歷史檔案、先前技術及其他請求項為基礎,探知申請人於申請時記載於申請專利範圍中之文字的客觀意義。
為協調各國專利制度,世界智慧財產權組織 (WIPO) 召開多屆實質專利法條約(SPLT,Substantive Patent Law Treaty)(註11)會議,第10屆草約中包括申請專利範圍解釋之法則,如Article11(4)(a)規定:「申請專利範圍應由其用語予以決定。解釋申請專利範圍,應考量適用之說明書及圖式修正本或更正本,及該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者於申請日之通常知識(註12)。」而其Rule13(1)規定:「(a)除非說明書中賦予特別涵義,申請專利範圍之用語應依其在相關技術領域中之通常涵義及範圍解釋之。(b)申請專利範圍之解釋無須侷限於嚴格之文義。(註13)」
備註
Article 69 Extent of protection (1), (The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent or a European patent application shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims.)
Protocol on the Interpretation of Article 69 The European Patent Convention, (Article 69 should not be interpreted as meaning that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Nor should it be taken to mean that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection conferred may extend to what, from a consideration of the description and drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patent proprietor has contemplated. On the contrary, it is to be interpreted as defining a position between these extremes which combines a fair protection for the patent proprietor with a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties.)
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (The Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) determines the scope of claims in patent applications not solely on the basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.) In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364[, 70 USPQ2d 1827] (Fed. Cir. 2004). (Indeed, the rules of the PTO require
that application claims must “conform to the invention as set forth in the remainder of the specification and the terms and phrases used in the claims must find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description.” 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1).)
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Notices, 7164, Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications. (Patented claims enjoy a presumption of validity and are not given the broadest reasonable interpretation during court proceedings involving infringement and validity, and can be interpreted based on a fully developed prosecution record. Accordingly, when possible, courts construe patented claims in favor of finding a valid interpretation. A court will not find a patented claim indefinite unless it is ‘insolubly ambiguous.’ In other words, the validity of a claim will be preserved if some meaning can be gleaned from the language. In contrast, no presumption of validity attaches before the issuance of a patent. The Office is not required or even permitted to interpret claims when examining patent applications in the same manner as the courts, which, post issuance, operate under the presumption of validity. The Office must construe claims in the broadest reasonable manner during prosecution in an effort to establish a clear record of what applicant intends to claim.)
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
為協調各國之專利制度,世界智慧財產權組織召開多屆實質專利法條約(Substantive Patent Law Treaty,以下簡稱SPLT)會議,2004年為第10屆,雖然該條約迄今尚未正式生效施行,惟從其草約內容仍得一窺各國協調之趨勢與方向。
Substantive Patent Law Treaty (10 Session), Article 11(4)(a) (The scope of the claims shall be determined by their wording. The description and the drawings, as amended or corrected under the applicable law, and the general knowledge of a person skilled in the art on the filing date shall [, in accordance with the Regulations,] be taken into account for the interpretation of the claims.)
Substantive Patent Law Treaty (10 Session), Rule13 (1)(a) (The words used in the claims shall be interpreted in accordance with the meaning and scope which they normally have in the relevant art, unless the description provides a special meaning.) (b) (The claims shall not be interpreted as being necessarily confined to their strict literal wording.)