? ? 美國專利法112條（b）款規定，(b)?CONCLUSION.—? ? The?specification?shall?conclude?with?one?or?more?claims?particularly?pointing?out?and?distinctly?claiming?the?subject?matter?which?the?inventor?or?a?joint?inventor?regards?as?the?invention.說明書應以一項或多項權利要求結束，特別指出并明確要求發明人或共同發明人視為發明的主題。

? ? 一、明確的界限要求MPEP2173指出，Claims?Must?Particularly?Point?Out?and?Distinctly?Claim?the?Invention權利要求書必須特別指出并明確要求保護發明。在專利審查術語中，權利要求語言必須是“明確的”，以符合《美國法典》第35卷112（b）條或《美國專利法》第35章112條第二款的規定。相反，不符合《美國法典》第35卷112（b）條或《美國建筑師協會法》第35章112條第二款規定的索賠是“不確定的”。要求權利要求語言明確的主要目的是確保權利要求的范圍明確，以便公眾了解構成專利侵權的界限。第二個目的是明確衡量發明人或共同發明人對發明的看法，以便確定所要求保護的發明是否符合所有可專利性標準。During?examination,?a?claim?must?be?given?its?broadest?reasonable?interpretation?consistent?with?the?specification?as?it?would?be?interpreted?by?one?of?ordinary?skill?in?the?art.?Because?the?applicant?has?the?opportunity?to?amend?claims?during?prosecution,?giving?a?claim?its?broadest?reasonable?interpretation?will?reduce?the?possibility?that?the?claim,?once?issued,?will?be?interpreted?more?broadly?than?is?justified.在審查過程中，必須對權利要求進行與說明書一致的廣泛的合理解釋，正如本領域普通技術人員所解釋的那樣。由于申請人有機會在審查期間修改權利要求，因此對權利要求作出廣泛的合理解釋將降低權利要求一旦發布后被更廣泛地解釋的可能性。During?prosecution,?applicant?has?an?opportunity?and?a?duty?to?amend?ambiguous?claims?to?clearly?and?precisely?define?the?metes?and?bounds?of?the?claimed?invention.?The?claim?places?the?public?on?notice?of?the?scope?of?the?patentee’s?right?to?exclude.在起訴期間，申請人有機會也有義務修改模棱兩可的權利要求，以清楚準確地定義所要求保護的發明的范圍和界限。該權利要求公開了專利權人排除權利的范圍。if?the?language?of?a?claim,?given?its?broadest?reasonable?interpretation,?is?such?that?a?person?of?ordinary?skill?in?the?relevant?art?would?read?it?with?more?than?one?reasonable?interpretation,?then?a?rejection?under?35?U.S.C.?112(b)?or?pre-AIA?35?U.S.C.?112,?second?paragraph?is?appropriate.?Examiners,?however,?are?cautioned?against?confusing?claim?breadth?with?claim?indefiniteness.?A?broad?claim?is?not?indefinite?merely?because?it?encompasses?a?wide?scope?of?subject?matter?provided?the?scope?is?clearly?defined.?Instead,?a?claim?is?indefinite?when?the?boundaries?of?the?protected?subject?matter?are?not?clearly?delineated?and?the?scope?is?unclear.如果一項權利要求的語言，考慮到其廣泛的合理解釋，相關領域的普通技術人員會用不止一種合理的解釋來閱讀，那么根據專利法112條第二款進行駁回是合適的。然而，審查員應注意不要將權利要求的廣度與權利要求的不確定性混為一談。寬泛的權利要求不是無限的，僅僅因為它涵蓋了廣泛的主題范圍，只要范圍明確界定。Definiteness?of?claim?language?must?be?analyzed,?not?in?a?vacuum,?but?in?light?of:(A)?The?content?of?the?particular?application?disclosure;(B)?The?teachings?of?the?prior?art;?and(C)?The?claim?interpretation?that?would?be?given?by?one?possessing?the?ordinary?level?of?skill?in?the?pertinent?art?at?the?time?the?invention?was?made.必須依據以下要素分析（而不是在真空中）權利要求的清晰性。

? ?（A）?特定申請披露的內容；

? ?（B）?現有技術的教導；和（C）?在發明時，具有相關領域普通技術水平的人會給出的權利要求解釋。the?examiner?must?consider?the?claim?as?a?whole?to?determine?whether?the?claim?apprises?one?of?ordinary?skill?in?the?art?of?its?scope?and,?therefore,?serves?the?notice?function?required?by?35?U.S.C.?112(b)審查員必須將權利要求作為一個整體來考慮，以確定該權利要求是否告知了本領域普通技術人員其范圍，從而履行了《美國法典》第35卷112（b）條規定的通知功能。If?the?language?of?the?claim?is?such?that?a?person?of?ordinary?skill?in?the?art?could?not?interpret?the?metes?and?bounds?of?the?claim?so?as?to?understand?how?to?avoid?infringement,?a?rejection?of?the?claim?under?35?U.S.C.?112(b)?or?pre-AIA?35?U.S.C.?112,?second?paragraph,?is?appropriate.如果權利要求的語言使得本領域普通技術人員無法解釋權利要求的范圍和界限，從而理解如何避免侵權，則拒絕該權利要求是適當的。

? ?二、說明書和權利要求的關系The?specification?should?ideally?serve?as?a?glossary?to?the?claim?terms?so?that?the?examiner?and?the?public?can?clearly?ascertain?the?meaning?of?the?claim?terms.?Correspondence?between?the?specification?and?claims?is?required?by?37?CFR?1.75(d)(1),?which?provides?that?claim?terms?must?find?clear?support?or?antecedent?basis?in?the?specification?so?that?the?meaning?of?the?terms?may?be?ascertainable?by?reference?to?the?specification.?Glossaries?of?terms?used?in?the?claims?are?a?helpful?device?for?ensuring?adequate?definition?of?terms?used?in?claims.?If?the?specification?does?not?provide?the?needed?support?or?antecedent?basis?for?the?claim?terms,?the?specification?should?be?objected?to?under?37?CFR?1.75(d)(1).?See?MPEP?§?608.01(o)?and?MPEP?§?2181,?subsection?IV.?Applicant?will?be?required?to?make?appropriate?amendment?to?the?description?to?provide?clear?support?or?antecedent?basis?for?the?claim?terms?provided?no?new?matter?is?introduced,?or?amend?the?claim.理想情況下，說明書應作為權利要求術語的術語表，以便審查員和公眾能夠清楚地確定權利要求條款的含義。37CFR1.75（d）

? ?（1）條要求規范和權利要求之間保持一致，該條款規定，權利要求條款必須在規范中找到明確的支持或先行依據，以便通過參考規范來確定術語的含義。權利要求中使用的術語表是確保權利要求中所用術語得到充分定義的有用工具。申請人將被要求對描述進行適當的修改，為權利要求條款提供明確的支持或先前依據，前提是沒有引入新的事項，或修改權利要求。A?claim,?although?clear?on?its?face,?may?also?be?indefinite?when?a?conflict?or?inconsistency?between?the?claimed?subject?matter?and?the?specification?disclosure?renders?the?scope?of?the?claim?uncertain?as?inconsistency?with?the?specification?disclosure?or?prior?art?teachings?may?make?an?otherwise?definite?claim?take?on?an?unreasonable?degree?of?uncertainty.當所要求保護的主題與說明書公開之間的沖突或不一致導致權利要求的范圍不確定時，權利要求雖然表面上很明確，但也可能是不確定的，因為與說明書公開或現有技術教導的不一致可能會使原本明確的權利要求具有不合理的不確定性。

來源：如磐篤行??免責聲明：版權歸原創所有僅供學習參考之用，禁止用于商業用途，部分文章推送時未能及時與原作者取得聯系，若來源標錯誤侵犯到您的權益煩請告知我們將立即刪除。