Re: [問題] coupled to 與 electrically connected …

[blueson (銀河的承諾)]

※ 引述《wqk (wqk)》之銘言：
: 請問各位，這兩個terms如果在說明書沒有特別定義，在claim construction的範圍上
: 有什麼差異？
: 我聽說coupled to 範圍比較大，但有哪位先進知道兩者的差異處何在嗎？
: thx a lot


  在進行claim construction時
  對於有爭議的claim用語，其文義解釋必須根據內部證據及外部證據
  因此在解釋 "coupled to" 或 "electrically connected to" 的範圍時
  會受到 specification 以及 prosecution histroy 的限制
  上述兩個用語並沒有說誰的範圍一定比較大
  在不同的case，常會有不同的解釋
  主要的爭議多半落在 "直接或間接"、"機構性或電性"...
  只能說依據大部分判決的結果， "coupled to"的範圍會比較大
  以下僅摘錄一些判決結果作為參考
  基本上，最好把整個判決的來龍去脈了解清楚
  而不要把判決的結果當作是上述兩用語的標準定義

  Johnson Worldwide Associates, Inc. v. Zebco Corp.
  (claim term “coupled” would not be restricted to a mechanical or
  physical coupling based on an inference from the written description,
  but could include electrical coupling as there was nothing in the
  specification or prosecution history to clearly limit couple from its
  broad meaning of connecting.)

  Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc v. ev3 Inc.
  (based on intrinsic evidence construing “couple” to require direct
  connection—“The term ‘coupled’ appears in claim 1.
  Boston Scientific proposes that the term be construed as ‘directly
  or indirectly linked.’ ev3 argues that ‘coupled’ should be construed
  as ‘the filter must be directly attached to the wire and not be
  attached to a tube that rides on the wire.’ After reviewing the
  intrinsic evidence, and the prosecution history in particular,
  the Court construes oupled’as adjacent and directly connected to.’”)

  NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd.
  (construing “connected to” in a claim limitation reciting “
  each mobile device comprising a wireless device connected to a mobile
  processor” as not necessarily precluding the wireless device and mobile
  processor from being located in same physical structure and stating
 “Webster's Third New International Dictionary 480 (1993) defines ‘
  connected’ as ‘to join, fasten, or link together.’ Although
 ‘connected' more strongly connotes a physical link between the mobile
  processor and the wireless receiver than does the term ‘transfer,’
  it still does not require that the mobile processor and wireless receiver
  be physically disposed in separate housings. A 'onnection’can occur
  between these two devices regardless of whether they are housed separately
  or together. Indeed, the two components could be connected, joined, or
  linked together by wires or other electrical conductors and still be
  located in the same housing or even on the same circuit board.")

--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc) 
◆ From: 59.115.177.79
推 demonhom:推 建議給個m吧
推 forcomet:有判例有推
推 jerico:推！
推 priorart:原PO乃本板專利強人也 不推對不起台灣智財界！
→ blueson:囧...只是手邊有些資料，與版友分享一下自己的看法而已
→ blueson:不過，specification的寫法以及OA的答辯技巧真的很重要！
→ concen:electrically connected跟connected不知道有沒有差喔?
→ concen:也謝謝你的資料，才知道有不少爭議。當初學到的還以為就是
→ concen:'定義'了呢。
→ demonhom:electrically connected 跟 connected 一定不一樣 XD
→ demonhom:前者係以"electrically"此一現象或功能,限定"connected"
→ demonhom:後者則無 ,差異甚明
推 jerico:電性連接，感覺就是只要電過的去都算！
→ concen:那意思是jerico舉的connected沒有疑義囉？有疑義需多討論的
→ concen:是electrically connected囉(如blueson討論的)?
→ concen:sorry..沒仔細看blueson的例子..例子好像是探討couple的
→ concen:意義。
→ blueson:根據手邊七.八個判決,coupled跟connected要看內部證據較準
→ blueson:至於electrically connected，如d大所述，有"電性"的限制
→ blueson:個人較偏好在電路案，寫成"耦接"，並翻成"coupled to"
→ blueson:通訊案就寫"連接"，翻成"connected"
→ blueson:機構案則習慣將元件上位化，用包含，再敘述各作動件的動作
→ blueson:不偏好在機構案claim中去寫"A連接B"，會限制機構連結關係
→ concen:謝謝你的說明，我原先是在問電路案，有沒有加electrically
→ concen:有沒有差..我知道是有加是限定為電性，但電路案若沒加
→ concen:會不會意思範圍比較不同?
→ concen:所以剛剛發了另一文，分析你舉的三個例子，但還是不能確定
→ concen:很多地方，可能我例子看得不夠多。
→ concen:電路案會寫耦接真的我會覺得是考量到範圍這點，通訊案是
→ concen:或其他地方是比較少看到耦接..不知道是否電路案比較特殊
推 demonhom:如果是相當常見且習知的電路元件或電路單元"電性連接"
→ demonhom:我想還是傾向用"連接".為什麼呢 因為即便是寫claim
→ demonhom:物件連接一定有其用意在,例如常寫"其係用以.."
→ demonhom:我想 由於大部分的情況 在前後文內多少還會敘述其功能
→ demonhom:若以前後文明顯地看得出其功能 且該物件亦為習知元件
→ demonhom:以小弟之見解 猜想應該可以考慮不加"electrically"
→ demonhom:以稍稍擴大權利要求項之範圍 (若審查官有意見 再補即可)
→ forcomet:就我以前得知的~加electrically是台灣從電性連接翻的~而
→ forcomet:電性連接是因為有人覺得"不是只是連接而已"所以出現電性
→ forcomet:連接這個詞~這是我以前好奇問一些資深從業人員得到的答案
推 thubo:推!!!