从一个实际案例浅谈功能性限定

Study on a Case of Means-Plus-Function

最高人民法院与《专利审查指南》(2010)对功能性限定的解释相互矛盾,导致功能性限定的权利要求的保护范围在专利审查程序和司法保护程序中并不相同。为了调和专利审查程序和司法保护程序对功能性限定的解释的矛盾,通过讨论一个功能性限定的案例,笔者以专利法立法宗旨为出发点,以平衡申请人与社会公众的利益、帮助申请人获得与其对现有技术做出贡献相适应的保护范围为目的,通过判断功能性限定的内容是否对现有技术做出贡献,分别给出对功能性限定的建议。

Due to the inconsistent interpretation of Means-Plus-Function （MPF） by China＇s Supreme People＇s Court and Guideline for Patent Examination 2010, the scope of protection of patent claims by MPF is different in patent examination procedure and judicial protection procedure.In order to reconcile the contradiction in interpretation of MPF in those two procedures, the author conducts a case study on MPF. Taking the legislative aim of Patent Law as the starting point, with the intention of balancing the interest of the applicants and the public and helping the applicants get the protection scope which corresponds with their contributions to the prior art, the author offers some advice for MPF by judging whether the contents of MPF contribute to the prior art or not.