"integrally formed"的限定範圍 - 專利

※ 引述《crazyM (知性與野性兼具)》之銘言：
: 若以中文描述“A和B一體成型“
: 在我認知中其限定範圍為A,B同材質，並以一種不可分割的方式相連
: 包含情況可能為：
: 1.A,B屬於同一個塑膠射出成品
: 2.A,B都是某金屬並銲接在一起（沒有他種金屬）
: 一體成型一般翻成"integrally formed"
: 但今天被告知"integrally formed"的範圍比中文的一體成型大
: EX:金屬片銲接於PCB 可以說金屬片與PCB為integrally formed（不同材質）
: 請問這種說法大家接受嗎？

一般而言，"integrally formed"的字面意義會大於"one-piece formed"
然而在美國專利訴訟中，疑似侵權者會從內部證據中找出有力支持以主張
"integrally formed"要限縮為"one-piece formed"，藉此達成產品無侵權

除非說明書或答辯中有清楚指明"integrally formed"有包括separable的描述
否則"integrally formed"很容易被解釋為"one-piece formed"

個人以為one-piece、two-piece、unitary、separate的解釋空間會比較小
connect、join、coupled、link、affix的解釋空間會比較大
總之，獨立項還是盡可能不要提到"一體成型"的概念
在附屬項或說明書中提到即可，且說明書中最好不要只有"一體成型"的實施例

至於claim到底該如何解讀，還是得回歸個案，以下案例僅供參考：

Burns, Morris & Stewart Ltd. Partnership v. Endura Products, Inc.
construing "integrally formed" and "formed integrally" to mean
'connected together so as to make up a single complete piece or unit,
or so as to work together as a single complete piece or unit, and
so as to be incapable of being easily dismantled without destroying
the integrity of the piece or unit.'

Safety Rail Source, LLC v. Bilco Co.
construing "integrally connecting" to mean 'joined together so as to
make up a single, complete, and substantially permanent piece or unit,
such that the connected components become an essential part of the
complete unit, and such that the complete unit is incapable of being
easily dismantled without destroying the unit'

Storus Corp. v. Restoration Hardware, Inc.
construing "integrally formed" and "formed integrally" to mean
'formed with material common to the rest of the unit, and the connection
having no mechanical joints'
construing "one-piece" as 'having no parts that separate from the unit
during normal operation and containing no parts that are not integrally
formed'

Scientific Specialties Inc. v. Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
construing "integral" to mean operating as a single unit, and not
requiring components made from a onepiece structure where the
specification use of the term "integral" showed that it referred to the
assembly as being handled as a single unit rather than being made form
a single structure, also noting that the applicant did not rely on a
single structure argument to distinguish its invention over prior art

--