DECIDED: April 18, 2000

本案所牽涉之專利，為Envirco Corporation（以下簡稱Envirco）所擁有之美國第4560395號，有關用於潔淨室之風扇與過濾器組合的專利（以下簡稱'395專利），其申請專利範圍第1項如下：

1. A compact air purification apparatus for providing clean airflow to a clean air enclosure comprising

a primary housing having first and second end portions and substantially closed sidewall portions,

inlet and discharge openings disposed through said first and second end portions, respectively,

a blower means mounted through said inlet opening so as to extend inwardly of said primary housing, said blower means having a motor drivingly connected to a centrifugal fan means, said centrifugal fan being disposed within said primary housing so as to discharge air radially outwardly with respect to said inlet opening, said centrifugal fan including a plurality of radially extending blade means,

a filter means mounted within said primary housing adjacent said discharge opening so that all airflow outwardly of said primary housing through said discharge opening passes through said filter means,

a first baffle means disposed adjacent said centrifugal fan means and between said centrifugal fan means and said filter means, said first baffle means having outwardly extending wall portions which extend outwardly of said centrifugal fan means toward said sidewalls of said primary housing so as to create an airflow space radially of said centrifugal fan means between said first baffle means and said sidewalls of said primary housing,

second baffle means disposed radially outwardly of said centrifugal fan means and said first baffle means, said second baffle means having inner surfaces for directing the airflow from said centrifugal fan means inwardly of said primary housing and between said first baffle means and said filter means

whereby air being introduced into said housing by said centrifugal fan means will be directed radially outwardly of said centrifugal fan means and guided by said first baffle means towards said second baffle means and thereafter by said second baffle means between said first baffle means and said air filter means.

由'395專利之申請專利範圍可以看出，空氣由離心式風扇（35）吸入後，係經由第一隔板（58）與第二隔板（67）的導引，使空氣到達HEPA（high efficiency particulate arresting）過濾器（48）上方，再經由過濾器（48）形成向下之層流氣流。

在'395專利的說明書中，揭露了數種實施例，其中第二隔板（67）均為拱形或彎曲結構。

被告為Clestrac Cleanroom Inc.（以下簡稱Clestrac）。其所製造之風扇與過濾器組合中，也具有如'395專利中之離心式風扇、第一隔板與過濾器。在第二隔板處，Clestrac則使用了L形的結構，而非拱形或彎曲形。

二、爭論焦點

由於'395專利中，「second baffle means」並非使用「功能附加手段」的方法撰寫，故在研判其均等範圍的大小時，係直接由申請專利範圍本身，而非由說明書中所揭露的實施例來擴大範圍。

在申請專利範圍中，「second baffle means」的功能為使氣流在經過first baffle means的導流後，能夠自外殼的側壁向內側流動，以到達HEPA過濾器的上方。而在結構限制方面，申請專利範圍中僅提及「依該離心風扇裝置與該第一隔板裝置之徑向向外設置」的結構限制。所以，任何與其結構限制與功能相同的元件，均應該落入其申請專利的範圍之中，而不應該受限於說明書中的實施例。由此看來，Clestrac的L形結構係落入了'395專利的申請專利的範圍之中。沒有理由僅因為其形狀不同，就判定其不侵權。

在美國專利的說明書中，由於means-plus-function的寫法可以主張不特定的結構，所以經常被使用來試圖擴大申請專利的範圍。但就因為其結構並不特定，所以，即使法條明文規定，在解釋申請專利範圍時需以說明書中所揭露的實施例為主，在實務上仍常引起解釋上的爭議。

一般而言，在means前可以加入一些修飾語，來更確認其限定範圍，如「printing means」、「supporting means」等。但需注意者，這些修飾語若本身含有結構上的意義，而非功能上的意義，則有可能會被認為是一種結構上的限定，而不符合美國專利法第112條第6段中，對於means plus function寫法的規範。

具有結構上意義的修飾語，多半都是名詞，因為名詞原本是指涉一種物品，而物品多半就具有結構上的暗示。如本案中，「baffle means」中的baffle一字就因是名詞，而被法官認定具有結構上的限制。

在申請專利範圍中，若可以使用名詞來描述元件，則使用上位概念來擴張申請專利範圍，往往也可以達到與用means來擴張範圍相同的功效。另外，有些人習慣用means的寫法來主張「複數個」元件，但是，在大部份情況下，是不需要用means的寫法來主張「複數個」元件的。關於這些概念，在Landis一書的第三章34節中都有詳細的說明，有興趣者不妨自行參考。

總之，若在means之前欲加入修飾語，不妨試試看將其倒裝，以測試該修飾語是功能性修飾語，還是結構性修飾語。例如，「printing means」可以倒裝為「means for printing」，所以其為一種功能性的修飾；而「baffle means」就不能倒裝為「means for baffle」，所以其為一種結構性的修飾。附帶一提，針對本案中「baffle」這個字的用法而言，若將「baffle means」改寫為「baffling means」，即以動名詞形態來修飾，說不定就會被認定為功能性修飾語了。差之毫釐，失之千里，撰寫專利說明書時，專利工程師一定要字斟句酌才行。