【摘要】：功能性限定權(quán)利要求的審查以及該類侵權(quán)案件的審判的核心都是保護(hù)范圍的確定。負(fù)責(zé)我國專利審查工作的國家知識產(chǎn)權(quán)局依據(jù)《審查指南》，將功能性限定權(quán)利要求的保護(hù)范圍解釋為覆蓋能夠?qū)崿F(xiàn)所述功能的所有實施方式。負(fù)責(zé)專利侵權(quán)案件審判工作的人民法院依據(jù)《關(guān)于審理侵犯專利權(quán)糾紛案件應(yīng)用法律若干問題的解釋》，將功能性限定權(quán)利要求的保護(hù)范圍解釋為，結(jié)合說明書和附圖描述的該功能性限定的技術(shù)特征的具體實施方式及其等同方式。兩種不同的解釋方式造成了我國在功能性限定權(quán)利要求保護(hù)范圍的解釋上無法形成統(tǒng)一的規(guī)定。損害了專利權(quán)人和公眾的利益，影響了《專利法》的嚴(yán)肅性。 在功能性限定權(quán)利要求的審查和保護(hù)范圍的解釋問題上，美國和歐洲專利局都已經(jīng)形成自己的一套成熟規(guī)定。美國對功能性限定權(quán)利要求規(guī)定了特殊的撰寫方式，在實質(zhì)審查時不進(jìn)行說明書支持方面的審查。并將其保護(hù)范圍解釋為說明書實施例及其等同方式，具體保護(hù)范圍由法院在侵權(quán)審判時再做確定。歐洲專利局規(guī)定功能性限定權(quán)利要求只適用于本領(lǐng)域技術(shù)人員在不需付出創(chuàng)造性勞動的條件下就可以確定實現(xiàn)該功能的技術(shù)手段的情況下。對于該類權(quán)利要求沒有規(guī)定特殊的審查要求。 通過與以上兩種規(guī)定相比較，可以看出，我國在功能性限定權(quán)利要求保護(hù)范圍的解釋問題上，應(yīng)當(dāng)依據(jù)折衷原則，將其解釋為覆蓋實現(xiàn)該功能的所有方式。在功能性限定的撰寫方式的適用問題上，應(yīng)當(dāng)規(guī)定發(fā)明點(diǎn)在于技術(shù)問題的提出或者功能性模塊的架構(gòu)時，可以使用功能性限定的撰寫方式。并且在實質(zhì)審查時應(yīng)當(dāng)要求對應(yīng)的說明書實施例具有本領(lǐng)域技術(shù)人員容易想到的替代方式。對于功能性限定權(quán)利要求的侵權(quán)審判，不再適用“等同原則”。 本文提出的具體解決方案，能夠?qū)抑R產(chǎn)權(quán)局和人民法院在功能性限定權(quán)利要求保護(hù)范圍問題上的分歧統(tǒng)一起來。有利于專利權(quán)人和社會公眾對功能性限定權(quán)利要求保護(hù)范圍的明確。
[Abstract]:The determination of the scope of protection is the core of the examination of functional limitation claims and the trial of such infringement cases. According to the Guide to Review, the State intellectual property Office, which is in charge of patent examination in China, interprets the scope of protection of functional limitation claims as covering all implementation modes that can achieve the said functions. The people's court responsible for the trial of patent infringement cases, in accordance with the interpretation of certain issues concerning the application of law in adjudicating patent infringement disputes, interprets the functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims as: Specific embodiments and their equivalents of the functionally defined technical features described in the specification and the drawings. Two different ways of interpretation make our country unable to form a unified stipulation on the interpretation of functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims. It damages the interests of the patentee and the public, and affects the seriousness of the Patent Law. Both the United States and the European Patent Office have developed their own set of mature regulations on the issue of functional limitation of claims and interpretation of the scope of protection. In the United States, functional qualification claims are written in a special way and are not reviewed in terms of specification support at the time of substantive review. The scope of protection is interpreted as an embodiment of the specification and its equivalent, and the specific scope of protection is determined by the court in the trial of infringement. The European Patent Office stipulates that functional limitation claims apply only to cases where technical personnel in the field can determine the technical means to achieve this function without the need for creative labour. There is no special review requirement for such claims. By comparing with the above two provisions, it can be seen that the interpretation of functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims in China should be interpreted as covering all the ways to achieve this function according to the compromise principle. With regard to the application of functional defined writing methods, it should be stipulated that the invention should be based on the presentation of technical problems or the architecture of functional modules, and that functional qualified writing methods should be used. And the corresponding specification embodiments should be required at the time of substantive review to have alternatives that are readily available to those skilled in the art. The principle of equivalence is no longer applicable to tort trials of functional limitation claims. The concrete solution proposed in this paper can unify the differences between the State intellectual property Office and the people's Court on the issue of functional limitation of the scope of protection of claims. It is beneficial to the patentee and the public to define the scope of protection of functional claims.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國社會科學(xué)院研究生院
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號】：D923.42

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前6條

1 王阜東;;美國法院專利權(quán)利要求解釋及侵權(quán)判定處理實例分析[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2009年06期

2 唐田田;;美國專利法判例選析 功能性權(quán)利要求的認(rèn)定標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和內(nèi)部證據(jù)在侵權(quán)判定中的處理原則[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2009年10期

3 張鵬;;論功能性限定權(quán)利要求保護(hù)范圍的解釋——以我國產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀為視角[J];中國發(fā)明與專利;2010年07期

4 肖志遠(yuǎn);;解讀專利制度的產(chǎn)業(yè)政策蘊(yùn)含[J];法學(xué)雜志;2009年11期

5 胡平仁;;法律政策學(xué)的學(xué)科定位與理論基礎(chǔ)[J];湖湘論壇;2010年02期

6 崔鑫生;;論美國專利與競爭政策平衡的措施[J];稅務(wù)與經(jīng)濟(jì);2007年04期

，

本文編號：2225923