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

CLAIM CONSTRUCTION OF MEANS PLUS FUNCTION -FOCUS ON PATENT NO. I240169 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW SUIT AND REEXAMINED WITH U.S. PATENT PRACTICE

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.