增加限制條件擴大了請求項的範圍: In re Cuozzo (Fed. Cir., July 8, 2015)

In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC [Opinion] (Fed. Cir., July 8, 2015)

一般專利工程師的概念，應該都是「增加請求項的限制條件，會限縮請求項的範圍」。但是在In re Cuozzo這個案子中，卻發生了「增加請求項的限制條件，會擴大請求項的範圍」的狀況。

這個案子源自於Garmin在2012年9月16日針對Cuozzo的專利所聲請的Inter Parte Review。Garmin主張包括claim 10在內的請求項不具可專利性。其中的關鍵，在「integrally attached」這個詞到底應該怎麼解釋。

Patent Trial and Appeal  Board認為，「integrally attached」這個詞，應該被解釋成「discrete parts physically joined together as a unit without each part losing its own separate identity」，並基於最廣合理解釋，判定claim 10因不具進步性而無效。


Cuozzo嘗試把claim 10修改成新的claim 21，以迴避Garmin提出的前案。然而，這個修改的聲請被Patent Trial and Appeal  Board拒絕。拒絕的兩個理由之一，是這個修改會「不當地擴大請求項的範圍」。

以下是claim 10與claim 21的比對表。很明顯地可以看出，claim 21相對於claim 10，只有增加限制條件 (用底線表示)。也就是說，增加限制條件會擴大請求項的範圍。

Claim 10	Claim 21
10. A speed limit indicator comprising:	21. A speed limit indicator comprising:
a global positioning system receiver;	a global positioning system receiver determining a vehicle’s present location, a vehicle’s present speed and a speed limit at the vehicle’s present location;
a display controller connected to said global positioning system receiver, wherein said display controller adjusts a colored display in response to signals from said global positioning system receiver to continuously update the delineation of which speed readings are in violation of the speed limit at a vehicle’s present location; and	a display controller connected to said global positioning system receiver, wherein said display controller adjusts a colored display in response to signals indicative of the speed limit at the vehicle’s present location from said global positioning system receiver to continuously update the delineation of which speed readings determined by the global positioning system receiver are in violation of the speed limit at the vehicle’s present location; and
a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display.	a speedometer integrally attached to said colored display,
	wherein the speedometer comprises a liquid crystal display, and
	wherein the colored display is the liquid crystal display.

這個「增加限制條件會擴大請求項的範圍」的結論，被聯邦巡迴上訴法院確認。詳情請參考判決文中最後D部份。這個結論到底是怎麼作出來的，值得大家注意喔。

其實，這個案子的重點不是這個。這個案子的重點，是USPTO長久以來關於請求項的解釋，所採用的「最廣合理解釋 (broadest reasonable interpretation)」到底正不正確。這真是個大哉問，如果這不正確，USPTO百年來的見解就都不正確了！

聯邦巡迴上訴法院確認了USPTO可以採用「最廣合理解釋」，Cuozzo聲請en banc review也被裁定駁回。不同意見大師Newman法官針對這點發表了不同意見。看來這個點，值得上訴到最高法院喔。

其它更多討論，包括本案的其它重點，以及對請求項的撰寫造成的影響，請參考Knowledge Repository。