English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 110934/141854 (78%)
Visitors : 47819536      Online Users : 56
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/101032


    Title: 手段功能用語之權利範圍解釋－以圓剛科技I240169號專利行政訴訟與美國專利法為比較
    Other Titles: CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF MEANS PLUS FUNCTION -FOCUS ON PATENT NO. I240169 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SUIT AND REEXAMINED WITH U.S. PATENT PRACTICE
    Authors: 林博智
    Lin, Po-Chih
    Keywords: 手段功能用語;三步測試法;明確性;結構性用語;可實施性
    Means Plus Function;Three-Step Test;Definiteness;Inventive Step;Enablement
    Date: 2015-06
    Issue Date: 2016-08-31 17:11:45 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 手段功能用語是一種很容易撰寫的請求項型式，但是在權利範圍的解讀上卻需額外加入說明書內之限制條件。此外，手段功能用語在明確性要求上較一般結構性請求項複雜許多，若未經事先規劃，很可能導致權利範圍太小或甚至專利無效。本文將探討最高行政法院在手段功能用語的認定方式，分析最高行政法院的判決和現行專利法制可能的衝突點和矛盾之處，並且以美國專利實務見解重新審視系爭判決。我國手段功能用語的規定長期以來都是跟隨美國專利實務的演進腳步，美國專利商標局在去年重新修訂手段功能用語的審查基準，依據聯邦上訴巡迴法院的最新見解變動了三步測試法，然而我國專利審查基準卻尚未跟隨修正，行政法院的認知仍然停留在舊有的觀念。我國手段功能用語的規定僅出現於專利法施行細則及專利審查基準，尚未明訂於專利法，然而這種撰寫方式已經很普及的被採用。本文期望能在手段功能用語尚未明文在專利法之前，尋找到最適合的專請專利範圍之解釋方式。
    Means plus function is one kind of claim language, which is easily drafted. However, while processing claim interpretation, it is assumed to include additional limitations from the patent specification. In addition, the definiteness requirement of means plus function is stricter than any other claim language, and without careful planning, it is more likely to be deemed invalid. This article will discuss the way the Administrative Court thinks on means plus function issue first, analyzing the conflict between the rule of Administrative Court and the patent practice nowadays, and then reexamine the same case with U.S. patent practice. USPTO modified the way to determine means plus function in Patent Examination Guideline last year. However, TIPO has not yet followed the steps of USPTO. The goal of this article is to seek out a better way to interpret means plus function language before modification of Taiwan Patent Law.
    Relation: 政大智慧財產評論, 13(1), 167-222
    NCCU Intellectual Property Review
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[智慧財產評論] 期刊論文

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    index.html0KbHTML2765View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback