※ 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.")
--
: 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.")
--
All Comments