為協調各國專利制度,世界智慧財產權組織召開多屆實質專利法條約(SPLT,Substantive Patent Law Treaty)(註1)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2)。」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3)」
一如前述,說明書的作用是揭露申請人完成了什麼發明;申請專利範圍的作用是在申請人所完成之發明的基礎上界定申請人請求授予什麼範圍。對於申請專利範圍的解釋,美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院在Phillips v. AWH案判決:「解釋申請專利範圍時,說明書具有舉足輕重的地位,因為該發明所屬技術領域中具有通常知識者瞭解申請專利範圍中所載之用語的意義不僅應基於該用語所在之請求項上下文的整體意義,亦應基於整個專利所揭露之上下文的整體意義,包括說明書(註5)。」
舉例而言,依說明書之記載,若某些技術特徵是申請專利之發明的必要技術特徵,但專利權人並未將其記載於獨立項A,而是記載於附屬項或另一獨立項B,解釋獨立項A時,仍須包含該必要技術特徵,而不適用請求項差異原則。對於前述之例,美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院在Tandon Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission案有闡示性的判決:申請專利範圍的解釋不得超過專利權人於申請日所提出之說明書及申請專利範圍中所揭露之發明(註15)。美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院另在Netword LLC v. Centraal Corp.案判決:「雖然說明書不必記載所有實施方式及其變易物,且申請專利範圍不侷限於發明人的實施方式……但不得將申請專利範圍擴及發明人所描述的發明之外。申請專利範圍就是對於申請專利範圍中所載之技術用語及其他用語所涵蓋範圍的司法陳述(註16)。」
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.)
經濟部智慧財產局,專利侵害鑑定要點(草案),2004年10月4日發布,頁30。
Phillips v. AWH corp., Nos. 03-1269, 1286, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 13954 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 12, 2005) (en banc) (The specification is of central importance in construing claims because the person of ordinary skill in the art is deemed to read claim term not only in the context of the particular claim in which the disputed term appears, but in the context of the entire patent, including the specification.)
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc).
Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc) (For that reason, claims must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.)
In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 300 (CCPA 1982) (Claims must always be read in light of the specification. Here, the specification makes plain what the appellants did and did not invent….)
Netword, LLC v. Centraal Corp., 242 F.3d 1347, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (The claims are directed to the invention that is described in the specification; they do not have meaning removed from the context from which they arose.)
Merck & Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 347 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (A fundamental rule of claim construction is that terms in a patent document are construed with the meaning with which they are presented in the patent document. Thus claims must be construed so as to be consistent with the specification, of which they are a part.)
CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (Consistent with that general principle, our cases recognize that the specification may reveal a special definition given to a claim term by the patentee that differs from the meaning it would otherwise possess. In such cases, the inventor’s lexicography governs.)
SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (In other cases, the specification may reveal an intentional disclaimer, or disavowal, of claim scope by the inventor. In that instance as well, the inventor has dictated the correct claim scope, and the inventor’s intention, as expressed in the specification, is regarded as dispositive.)
Phillips v. AWH corp., Nos. 03-1269, 1286, 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 13954 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 12, 2005) (en banc) (Ultimately, the interpretation to be given a term can only be determined and confirmed with a full understanding of what the inventors actually invented and intended to envelop with the claim.)
Tandon Corp. v. U.S. International Trade Commission 831 F.2d 1017, 4 USPQ2d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (Whether or not claims differ from each other, one can not interpret a claim to be broader than what is contained in the specification and claims as filed.)