医药及生物技术领域专利申请、审查暨药品技术转让专题研讨会
海口，2010年1月23-25日
Patent Profanity – Avoiding the Common Pitfalls
in Drafting and Prosecution
专利忌语—避开专利申请书起草以及专利审查过程中的常见陷阱
By Tom Irving
作者: Tom Irving
© Finnegan, 2010
DISCLAIMER
免责声明

These materials are public information and have been prepared solely for educational purposes
to contribute to the understanding of American intellectual property law. These materials reflect
only the personal views of the author and are not individualized legal advice. It is understood
that each case is fact-specific, and that the appropriate solution in any case will vary. Therefore,
these materials may or may not be relevant to any particular situation. Thus, the author and
FINNEGAN cannot be bound either philosophically or as representatives of their various present
and future clients to the comments expressed in these materials. The presentation of these
materials does not establish any form of attorney-client relationship with the author or
FINNEGAN. While every attempt was made to insure that these materials are accurate, errors or
omissions may be contained therein, for which any liability is disclaimed.

本资料为公开信息，仅供教育之目的，旨在增进对美国知识产权法的理解。本资
料仅代表作者的个人观点，并不构成对具体案件出具的法律意见，也不代表飞翰
律师事务所的观点。众所周知，每个案件都有其独特的案件事实，因此不同案件
的适当解决方法也各不相同。因此，本资料可能与任何特定情形相关，也可能无
关。据此，就作者和飞翰律师事务所而言，对其现在或将来代理的不同客户，其
都无需就本资料中所出具的任何评论意见承担任何法律责任。本资料的呈递行为
不构成与飞翰或作者的任何形式的律师-委托人关系。尽管作者已尽力确保本资料
的准确性，但本资料中仍可能含有错误或疏漏之处，对此作者将概不承担任何责
任。
2
The task of preparing a U.S. patent application disclosure is not an
easy one:
"There are few, if any, legal documents more difficult to craft, more
fraught with pitfalls than patent applications[.]”
Circuit Judge Newman dissenting in Energizer Holdings, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, 2008 WL
1791980, *10 (Fed. Cir. April 21, 2008)(not published).
准备美国专利申请披露并非一件轻松的差事：
“很少有比专利申请书更加难以起草、更加充满陷阱的法律
文 件[。] ”
巡回法院法官Newman在Energizer Holdings, Inc. 诉 International Trade Commission, 2008 WL
1791980, *10 (联邦巡回法院， 2008年4月21日)(未公开)一案中持不同意见。
3
WHY TO AVOID “PATENT PROFANITY”
为什么要避免 “专利忌语”
 U.S. specification and prosecution history will be used to construe
U.S. patent claims
 De novo appellate review in the U.S. of claim construction
 专利说明书和审查历史将被用来对美国专利权利要求书
进行解释。
 美国权利要求解释在上述法院被重新审理
4
FRAMEWORK FOR CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
权利要求解释框架
• “ The specification is always highly relevant to claim construction
and is the single best guide to the meaning of a claim term in
dispute.”
• Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005)(en banc)
• Applies to all U.S. patents
• “专利说明书与权利要求解释密切相关，且其是诉争权
利要求用语含义的唯一最佳指引。”
• Phillips 诉 AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (联邦巡回法院，2005年) 一案(全院联席审理)
•
适用于所有美国专利
5
“VERY IMPORTANT”
“非常重要”
 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (FC) affirmed holding of
noninfringement in Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.,
450 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2006)
– Invention: a credit-card sized PDA that can be "docked" by plugging it
into a corresponding bay on the host computer.
 在 Inpro II Licensing, S.A.R.L. 诉 T-Mobile USA, Inc., 450 F.3d 1350
(联邦巡回法院， 2006)一案中，美国联邦巡回上诉法院维持了
未侵权的原判决。
– 发明：一个信用卡大小的掌上电脑（PDA），可以插入主机
的相应槽中进行对接。
6
“VERY IMPORTANT”
“非常重要”
– U.S. District Court (DC): Construed claim term, “host interface” to mean
“a direct parallel bus interface ”.
 No infringement because such a host interface is absent from the
accused devices.
– Inpro II: district court erroneously limited term to the embodiment in the
specification; term includes any interface for providing communication
with a host.
– 美国地方法院：在对权利要求用语进行解释时指出，“主机
接口”指“一个直接的并行总线接口”。
 法院判定未侵权，理由为：该主机接口在被诉装置中并
不存在。
– Inpro II 争辩：地方法院错误地将权利要求用语的含义局限于专
利说明书中的实施例。这一用语的含义应包括任何可提供同主
机通信的接口。
7
“VERY IMPORTANT and ONLY”
“非常重要”以及“唯一”
 Inpro II (con’t)
– FC: Narrow claim scope because patentee used the term “very important” in
the specification.
 “A very important feature … in an aspect of the present invention is a direct
parallel bus interface [.]
 The only host interface described in the specification is a direct parallel bus
interface.
 Specification emphasizes the importance of a parallel connection in solving
the problems of the previously used serial connection.
 Inpro II 案(续)
– 联邦巡回法院：应选择狭义的权利要求范围，因为专利权人在专
利说明书中使用了 “非常重要”一词。
 “本发明的一个非常重要的特征在于其直接的平行总线接口”。
 专利说明书中所描述的唯一主机接口为直接的并行总线接口。
 在解决因先前采用串行连接而产生的问题时，
8
专利说明书强调了并行连接的重要性。
“SPECIAL” “PECULIAR”
“特殊的”、“独特的”
 FC affirmed no infringement in Bayer AG v. Elan Pharmaceuticals Research
Corp., 212 F.3d 1241 (Fed. Cir. 2000), because Bayer “unmistakably
surrendered coverage to SSAs above 4 m2/g” through its use of the words
“special” and “peculiar.
 Claim 1. A solid pharmaceutical composition comprising as the active
ingredient an effective amount of nifedipine crystals with a specific surface
area of 1.0 to 4 m2/g, in admixture with a solid diluent, to result in a sustained
release of nifedipine.
 在Bayer AG诉Elan Pharmaceuticals Research Corp., 212 F.3d 1241（联
邦巡回法院，2000年）一案中，联邦巡回法院维持了未侵权的原
判，理由是：Bayer 通过使用“特殊的”以及“独特的”等词
“明确放弃了超过4 m2/g的SSA的范围”。
 权利要求1。一种固体医药组合物包括作为活性成分的有效剂量
之硝苯吡啶晶体（其特殊的表面积为1.0至4 m2/g ）与一种固体稀
释剂混合，可实现硝苯吡啶的持续释放。
9
“SPECIAL” “PECULIAR”
“特殊的”、“独特的”
 Elan's ANDA covers a once-daily formulation of nifedipine - an extended
release tablet dosage form containing 30 mg of nifedipine.
 Elan的简化新药申请涵盖了硝苯吡啶的每日一次给药的
制剂，一种含有30 mg硝苯吡啶的缓释片剂。
10
“SPECIAL” “PECULIAR”
“特殊的”、“独特的”
 Bayer (con’t)
– DC: Summary judgment of no literal infringement and no infringement under
the doctrine of equivalents.
 Elan's proposed product will have an SSA greater than 5 m2/g.
 Bayer案 (续)
– 地方法院：即决判决判定不存在字面侵权，也不存在“等同原则”
项下规定的任何侵权行为。
 Elan拟议产品中所含的SSA超过了5 m2/g。
11
“SPECIAL” “PECULIAR”
“特殊的”、“独特的”
– FC: Affirmed.
 “After amending its claims to cover an SSA range of 1.0 to 4 m2/g, Bayer
asserted that it claimed ‘a special form of nifedipine, namely, having a
specific surface area of 1.0 to 4 m2/g,’ …[with] a superior, inventive
range.”
 In brief to BPAI, “nifedipine crystals with an SSA range of 1.0 to 4 m2/g
provided the ‘peculiar’ effect of maintaining a high blood level of
nifedipine for a long period of time.”
– 联邦巡回法院：维持原判。
 “在拜耳对权利要求进行修改以使其涵盖1.0至4 m2/g的SSA之
后，其宣称所主张的是‘硝苯吡啶的一种特殊形式，即特定
表面积为1.0至4 m2/g，’…一个卓越的、发明性的范围。”
 在向专利复审委员会（BPAI）进行简要陈述时称，“SSA范围
为1.0至4 m2/g的硝苯吡啶晶体具有长时间保持较高硝苯吡啶血12
液水平的‘独特’效果。”
“NECESSARY”
“必要的”
 FC affirmed no infringement in Atofina v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 441 F.3d 991 (Fed.
Cir. 2006), because of statements in the specification that “it is necessary to have a
catalyst containing solely chromium.”
– Great Lakes’ chromium catalyst contained a non-chromium, non-nickel substance.
 Atofina: statements regarding “metal oxides” were intended to distinguish only nickelchromium catalysts.
 “That the applicants only needed to surrender nickel-chromium catalysts to avoid a prior
art reference does not mean that its disclaimer was limited to that subject matter.”
 在Atofina诉Great Lakes Chemical Corp.，441F.3d 991（联邦巡回法院，2006
年）一案中，联邦巡回法院维持了未侵权的原判，理由为：专利说明书中
指出“必须含有一种只含铬的催化剂。”
– Great Lakes的铬催化剂含有一种非铬非镍的物质。
 Atofina 辩：关于“金属氧化物”的陈述，其目的仅在于区别镍-铬催化剂。
 “虽然申请人只需放弃镍-铬催化剂即可避免在先技术参考文
献，但这并不意味着其仅放弃该部分主题。”
13
“CRITICAL” “KEY”
“重要的”、“关键的”
 FC affirmed no infringement in Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. v. Mylan
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 170 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 1999), because during
prosecution, Upjohn emphasized the “criticality” of using spray-dried lactose.
– Claim 1. In an [sic] micronized anti-diabetic pharmaceutical composition … the
improvement which comprises: spray-dried lactose as the preponderant excipient
in said composition, …
– Mylan’s micronized glyburide compositions used anhydrous lactose as the
principal excipient; they contain no spray-dried lactose.
 在 Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. 诉 Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 170 F.3d 1373 (联
邦巡回法院，1999年)一案中,联邦巡回法院维持了未侵权的原判，理由
为：在专利审查期间， Upjohn强调了使用喷雾干燥乳糖的“关键性”。
– 权利要求1。在一种微粉抗糖尿病医药组合物中……其改进包括：在
该组合物中，喷雾干燥乳糖作为主要的辅药，…...
– Mylan的微粉优降糖组合物采用无水乳糖作为主要辅药；它们不含喷
雾干燥乳糖。
14
“ CRITICAL” “KEY”
“重要的”、“关键的”
 Pharmacia (con’t)
– Upjohn’s “profane” arguments in response to rejection:
 “As indicated in the specification, the use of spray-dried lactose is a critical
feature of the present invention. Using lactose which is not spray-dried does
not yield a formulation which is easily and readily manufacturable.”
 “The key feature of the present invention is the particular type of lactose
employed in the composition.”
 Pharmacia 案(续)
– Upjohn在就驳回做出答复时的“禁忌” 论点：
 “如专利说明书中所述，使用喷雾干燥乳糖是本发明的一个
关键特点。使用非喷雾干燥的乳糖不会产生一种易于制造的配
方。”
 “本发明的关键特点在于组合物中所采用的特殊类型的乳糖。”
15
“NECESSARILY”
“必要地”
 Although nothing in the claims or specification restricted the claimed admixture to
homogeneous admixtures, the profanity “necessarily” in the arguments during
prosecution resulted in a narrow claim construction in Biovail Corp. Int’l v. Andrx
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 239 F.3d 1297 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
 在Biovail Corp. Int’l 诉 Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 239 F.3d 1297 (联邦巡回
法院，2001年)案中，虽然权利要求书或专利说明书未将所主张的混
合物限定于同质混合物，但在专利审查期间使用忌语“必要地”一词
导致了狭义的权利要求解释。
16
“NECESSARILY”
“必要地”或“必定”
 DC: Biovail amended its claims during prosecution to “exclude a sugar core not in
admixture with the diltiazem ... in response to a prior art rejection.” Therefore,
“Biovail is estopped from asserting that the inert sugar core of the Andrx
formulation is a ‘wetting agent’ within the scope of the claims ….”
 FC: Affirmed.
– Remarks accompanying amendment: a bead produced by the [claimed]
extrusion-spheronization process “is necessarily a homogeneous bead
composition.”
 地方法院：在答复基于在先技术的专利驳回时，Biovail在专利审查期
间对权利要求进行修改以“排除未与地尔硫混合的糖心”。 因此，
“Biovail被禁止尔后声称Andrx制剂的惰性糖心是一种‘润湿剂’….”
 联邦巡回法院：维持原判
– Biovail随附权利要求修改的阐述：采用[所主张的]挤压-滚圆技术
生产的药粒“必定是一种同质颗粒组合物。”
17
“REQUIRES” “IMPORTANT”
“要求”、“重要的”
 Narrow claim construction in Andersen Corp. v. Fiber Composites LLC, 474
F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2007) based on profanity in the specification and during
prosecution.
– For Group II patents, “specification indicates that the structural members are
defined by reference to the process by which they are made”
– A double profanity:
 “procedure requires two important steps. A first blending step and a
second pelletizing step.”
 在Andersen Corp. 诉 Fiber Composites LLC, 474 F.3d 1361 (联邦巡回法
院， 2007年)案中，法院基于专利说明书以及专利审查期间所使用的
忌语， 做出了狭义的权利要求解释。
– 就第二组专利而言，“专利说明书指出，结构元件的性能是由生
产该结构元件的工艺所确定的。”
– 双重禁忌:
 “该程序要求完成两个重要步骤：第一个步骤
18
为混合，第二个为颗粒化。”
“ESSENTIAL” “IMPORTANT”
“必不可少的”、“重要的”
 Andersen (con’t)
– Group I claims: During prosecution, applicants repeatedly distinguished the
invention from the prior art by referring to the pellet form or the pelletization
process as an essential part of the invention.
– “Important” also played a narrowing role.
 “The manufacture of the pellet is important in obtaining the final
structural properties of the composite member”
 Andersen案 (续)
– 第一组权利要求：在专利审查期间，申请人一再通过指出颗粒
形式或制粒工艺为本发明必不可少的部分，将本发明与在先技
术相区分。
– 使用“重要的”一词也会导致权利要求范围缩小。
 “就最终所取得的组合物的结构特性而言，颗粒
的生产过程无疑是重要的。”
19
“UNIQUE”
“独特的”
 Bass Pro Trademarks, L.L.C. v. Cabela's, Inc., 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
– Invention: combination vest garment with pivotable seat member.
– Accused product: pivotable seat with backpack straps
– DC: Infringement, full vest not required by claim
– FC: Vacated
 “Vest” requires fabric in the front and back
 Throughout prosecution, applicant relied on the “vest” and “unique combination”
to distinguish the invention from the prior art
 Bass Pro Trademarks, L.L.C. 诉 Cabela’s, Inc.案, 82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1364 (联邦巡回
法院， 2007年)
– 发明：背心与转椅的组合
– 被诉产品：具有双肩背带的转椅
– 地方法院：存在侵权，因为权利要求没有要求完整背心。
– 联邦巡回法院：撤消原判决
 “背心”要求前部和背后均有布料。
 在整个专利审查过程中，申请人依赖于“背心”和“独特组合”
20
将本发明同在先技术相区分。
TIPS TO AVOID PATENT PROFANITY
避免专利忌语的技巧
 Minimize the use of words of characterization
– Chief, Majority
– Critical, Essential, Necessary
– Solely, Only, Is
– Main
 减少使用定性类词语
– 主要的、大多数的
– 关键的、必不可少的、必要的
– 唯一的、仅有的、是
– 主要的
21
TIPS TO AVOID PATENT PROFANITY
避免专利忌语的技巧
–
–
–
–
–
Significant
Principal
Important
Fundamental
Vital
–
–
–
–
–
重要的
首要的
关键的
基本的
决定性的
22
WHAT ABOUT “PREFERABLE”?
何为 “优选实施例”?
 Claim includes embodiments beyond “preferable”
– Lampi Corp. v American Power Products, Inc., 228 F.3d 1365, 56 U.S.P.Q.
1444 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
 权利要求书中包括“优选”范围以外的实施例
– Lampi Corp. 诉American Power Products, Inc.案, 228 F.3d 1365, 56 U.S.P.Q.
1444 (联邦巡回法院， 2000年)
23
WHAT ABOUT “PREFERABLE”?
何为 “优选实施例”?
 Only “preferred” embodiments within scope of claim
– Wang Laboratories, Inc. v. American Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir.
1999)
– Scimed Life Systems, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., 242
F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
– Oak Technology, Inc. v. ITC, 248 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
 仅“优选”实施例被包括在权利要求范围内
– Wang Laboratories, Inc.诉 American Online, Inc.案, 197 F.3d 1377 (联邦巡
回法院， 1999年)
– Scimed Life Systems, Inc. 诉 Advanced Cardiovascular Systems, Inc.一案,
242 F.3d 1337 (联邦巡回法院 2001年)
– Oak Technology, Inc. 诉 ITC一案, 248 F.3d 1316 (联邦巡回法院2001年)
24
BEWARE OF CASE LAW SUPPORTING
NARROW CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
应注意支持狭义权利要求解释的判例法
 Claims are not limited to the preferred embodiment “unless that embodiment is in
fact the entire invention presented.” Vulcan Eng'g Co. v. Fata Aluminium, Inc., 278
F.3d 1366, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
 “where the specification makes clear at various points that the claimed invention is
narrower than the claim language might imply, it is entirely permissible and proper
to limit the claims.” Alloc Inc. v. ITC, 342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2004), citing SciMed
Life Sys., Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1345 (Fed.
Cir. 2001)
 权利要求不局限于优选实施例，“除非该实施例事实上涵盖了所提交
发明的所有事项。”Vulcan Eng‘g Co. 诉 Fata Aluminium, Inc.案, 278 F.3d
1366, 61 U.S.P.Q.2d 1545(联邦巡回法院，2002年)
 “如果专利说明书多次清晰地阐释其所主张的发明范围小于权利要求
语言所蕴含的范围，法院对权利要求书进行限制是适当并为专利法所
允许的。” Alloc Inc.诉 ITC案, 342 F.3d 1361 (联邦巡回法院，2004), 援
引SciMed Life Sys., Inc. 诉 Advanced CardiovascularSys., Inc.案, 242 F.3d 1337,
25
1345 (联邦巡回法院， 2001)
BEWARE OF CASE LAW SUPPORTING
NARROW CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
应注意支持狭义权利要求解释的判例法
 “when the preferred embodiment is described in the specification as the invention
itself, the claims are not necessarily entitled to a scope broader than that
embodiment.” Edwards Life Sciences v. Cook, Inc., --F.3d-- (Fed. Cir. Sept. 23,
2009)
 “如果专利说明书将优选实施例描述为发明本身，则权利要求的范
围不得超过该实施例。” Edwards Life Sciences 诉 Cook, Inc.案, --F.3d-(联邦巡回法院，2009年9月23日)
26
WORDS THAT MAKE OTHER WORDS PROFANITY
导致其它词语成为忌语的用词






Surprising
Unexpected (?)
All (?)
Only (?)
Each (?)
“The invention is…” or “This invention…”






令人惊奇的
意想不到的 (?)
全部 (?)
仅仅 (?)
每一 (?)
“发明为……” 或 “本发明……”
27
“IS”
“是”
 SciMed Life Systems, Inc. v. ACS, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2001)
– Federal Circuit found no infringement based on a specification which read:
 “[the coaxial lumen structure is] the ‘basic sleeve structure for all
embodiments of the present invention contemplated and disclosed herein.’”
 SciMed’s claim construed to cover coaxial configurations only even though no
specific designed mentioned in claim and no relevant prosecution history.
– Coaxial and dual designs known in the art.
– Preferred embodiment described as coaxial design.
 Accused device was dual design.
 SciMed Life Systems, Inc. 诉 ACS, Inc.案 (联邦巡回法院，2001年)
– 联邦巡回法院基于专利说明书判定未侵权。该专利说明书指出：
 “[同轴腔管结构是]本发明所披露的所有实施例的‘基本套管结
构。’”
 虽然没有在权利要求书和相关专利审查历史中具体提及，但
SciMed的权利要求范围仅涵盖同轴结构。
– 同轴和双腔管设计在此项术领域中已知。
28
– 优选实施例被描述为同轴设计。
 被诉装置为双腔管设计
HOW SCIMED’S PROFANITY CAUSED PROBLEM
SCIMED的专利忌语如何引致问题产生
 FC:
– “That language,,, ‘leaves no doubt that a person skilled in the art would
conclude that the inventor envisioned only one design for the catheters
taught in SciMed's patents--an intermediate sleeve section containing two . . .
lumens arranged coaxially.’“
 联邦巡回法院:
– “根据其所用语言 ……‘毫无疑问，本领域的一般技术人员将得
出以下结论：发明者在SciMed的专利中仅预想到了一种输导管设
计—— 即一种含有两个……腔管同轴排列的中间套管段。’”
29
HOW SCIMED’S PROFANITY CAUSED PROBLEM
SCIMED的专利忌语如何引致问题产生
– “SciMed argues that the references to the annular inflation lumen are meant
only to refer to the preferred embodiment of the invention, and not to indicate
that the claims should be construed as limited to a structure employing
coaxial lumens. That argument, however, flies in the face of the many
statements in the written description that define "the invention" as employing a
coaxial lumen structure and distinguish the prior art in part on the ground that
it used a dual lumen structure …”
– “ SciMed辩称，其引用环形充气腔管仅是为了指出该发明的优选
实施例，并非旨在将权利要求范围局限于使用同轴腔管的结构。
但是，其上述辩称内容与其专利说明书中的说明相背，因为许多
书面说明都将“本发明”确定为是采用同轴腔管结构的发明，并
以此为由将其与采用双腔管结构的在先技术相区分…… ”
30
NECESSARILY PRESENT
必定存在
 Alloc Inc. v. ITC, 342 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2003), cert. denied, (2004)
– Invention: methods and system of joining floor panels
– “play” not a recited limitation
– But claims construed to require “play”
– Why?
 Alloc Inc. 诉 ITC案, 342 F.3d 1361 (联邦巡回法院，2003年), 调卷令
被驳回, (2004年)
– 发明:镶合地板的方法和系统
– “空隙”并非权利要求所含之限制
– 但权利要求解释却要求有该“空隙”
– 原因何在?
31
NECESSARILY PRESENT
必定存在
 Alloc (con’t)
– FC: construed claim to require “play” and affirmed no literal infringement
 play “necessarily present”
 Specification, including “Objects of Invention” (why use?) criticize prior
art floor systems (why discuss the prior art?) without play
 Alloc案 (续)
– 联邦巡回法院: 解释该权利要求需具有相应“空隙”，因此维
持 “不存在字面侵权”的原判决。
 空隙“必定存在”。
 专利说明书（包括“发明项目”）（为何使用该词？）批评
在先技术地板系统（为何要讨论在先技术？）没有“空隙”。
32
NECESSARILY PRESENT
必定存在
 All the figures and embodiments imply or expressly disclose play
 Conclusion: specification teaches that “invention as a whole, not
merely a preferred embodiment, provides for play in the positioning of
floor panels.”
 所有数据和实施例都明示或暗示披露了该等“空隙”。
 结论: 根据专利说明书的内容，“该发明作为一个整体，不
仅仅是一个优选实施例，在地板的定位过程中提供空隙。”
33
“ OR” DOES NOT MEAN “AND/OR”
“或者”并非指“和/或”
 Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 264 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir.
2001)
– Claim: “selecting either a greatest magnitude or highest frequency search”
– DC: “or” = a choice between either one of two alternatives, but not both.”
 Kustom Signals, Inc. 诉Applied Concepts, Inc.案，264 F.3d 1326 (联邦
巡回法院，2001年)
– 权利要求 “选择执行最大数量或最高频率的检索”
– 地方法院: “或者” = “在两个备选方案中选择其中一个，但
不得同时选择两个方案。”
34
“ OR” DOES NOT MEAN “AND/OR”
“或者”并非指“和/或”
– FC: Affirmed no infringement by device that searched magnitude and frequency.
 "or" requires the exclusion of devices whose memory search includes
magnitude and frequency.
 No Doctrine of Equivalents either because of prosecution history estoppel
(added limitation about alternative searching during prosecution).
– 联邦巡回法院: 维持原判，即可同时进行数量和频率检索的设备未
侵权。
 “或者”排除了同时包括对数量和频率进行存储器检索的设备。
 鉴于专利审查历史禁止反悔之原因（在专利审查期间增加了有
关选择性检索的限制），因而不适用等同原则（DOE）。
35
OR DO YOU MEAN “AND” = “OR”?
还是您认为 “和”=“或”？
 Ortho-McNeil Pharms. Inc. v. Mylan Labs., Inc., 520 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir.
2008)
– Ortho’s patent claims topiramate (TOPOMAX®) as a compound with “and”
linking a number of components.
 Ortho-McNeil Pharms. Inc. 诉 Mylan Labs., Inc.案, 520 F.3d 1358 (联邦巡
回法院 ，2008年)
– Ortho的专利主张托吡酯 (TOPOMAX®) 为一种化合物，并使用“和”
一词将一些列成分连接在一起。
36
OR DO YOU MEAN “AND” = “OR”?
还是您认为 “和”=“或”？
 R2, R3, R4 and R5 are independently hydrogen or lower alkyl and R2 and
R3 and/or R4 and R5 together may be a group of the following
formula …wherein R6 and R7 are the same or different and are hydrogen,
lower alkyl or are alkyl and are joined to form a … ring.
 Blue and green have to be met to infringe?
 Mylan’s compound met the green component, but did not meet the blue
component.
 R2、R3、 R4 和R5是独立的氢或低烃基；并且R2和R3和/或R4和
R5一起可能成为下列分子式的基团基 ……..其中，R6和R7相同或
不同，为氢、低烃基或烃基，并且连在一起形成 … 环
 必须同时符合蓝色和绿色才构成侵权？
 Mylan的化合物符合绿色成分的要求，但不符合蓝色成分的要求。
37
OR DO YOU MEAN “AND” = “OR”?
还是您认为 “和”= “或”？
 Ortho-McNeil (con’t)
– DC: permanent injunction against Mylan and reset effective approval date for
Mylan's ANDA
 Ortho-McNeil案 (续)
– 地方法院：针对Mylan发布永久禁令，并重新设定Mylan简化新药
申请的有效批准日。
38
OR DO YOU MEAN “AND” = “OR”?
还是您认为 “和”= “或”？
– FC: Affirmed - claim 1 covers Mylan’s compound
 “the claim language depicts two subsets of compounds, but does not
require their simultaneous existence.”
 “as used in this claim, and conjoins mutually exclusive possibilities.”
 “In the circumstances of this case, the use of ‘and’ to express alternatives
was chosen and adequately expressed by the applicant.”
 “Construing claim 1 to require a conjunctive meaning of ‘and’ would render
several dependent claims meaningless.”
– 联邦巡回法院：维持原判——权利要求1涵盖了Mylan的化合物。
 权利要求语言描述了化合物的两个子集，但没有要求它们同时
存在。
 按照在此项权利要求中的用法，“和” 结合相互排斥的可能性。
 在本案中，申请人选择使用“和”来表达替代方案。
 若将权利要求1解释为其要求“和”具有连接含义，将使数项 39
从属权利要求变得毫无意义。
YOU GOTTA’ BE KIDDING
您是在开玩笑吧
 Allen Engineering Corp. v. Bartell Indus., 299 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
– FC: claim ending in the middle of a limitation (“coupled to said gearbox
means by rigid…”) is indefinite because it is impossible to discern the
scope of such a truncated limitation.
 Pre-Phillips
 Allen Engineering Corp. 诉 Bartell Indus.案, 299 F.3d 1336 (联邦巡回
法院，2002年)
– 联邦巡回法院：在限制内容中间结束的权利要求（“同所述
变速箱连接…”）具有不确定性，因为根本不可能识别被删
节限制的范围。
 Pre-Phillips
40
YOU GOTTA’ BE KIDDING
您是在开玩笑吧
– Another claim read: "its gear box only in a plane perpendicular to said
biaxial plane.”
– But specification described structure as "gearbox … cannot pivot in a plane
perpendicular to the biaxial plane.”
– Allen argued that one of skill in the art would understand that the term
"perpendicular" in the claim should be read to mean "parallel."
– FC: “Allen stretches the law too far.”
– 另一项权利要求指出：其变速箱位于一个垂直于所述双轴平面
的平面上。
– 但专利说明书对该结构的描述为“变速箱…不能在垂直于所述
双轴平面的平面上转动。
– Allen辩称，本领域的一般技术人员将理解权利要求中的 “垂直”
一词应该意为“平行”。
– 联邦巡回法院：“Allen曲解法律。”
41
THANK YOU!
谢谢！
Contact Information:
联系人信息：
Tom Irving (Washington)
+1 202 408 4082
tom.irving@finnegan.com
Esther Lim (Shanghai)
+86 21 6194 2000
esther.lim@finnegan.com
Ningling Wang (Shanghai)
+86 21 6194 2000
ningling.wang@finnegan.com
Bing Hai (California)
+1 650 849 6774
bing.hai@finnegan.com
42