論申請專利範圍明確性要件－以手段（步驟）功能用語為中心

本研究針對手段（步驟）功能用語請求項之認定方式及其明確性要件，提出適宜的判斷標準。架構上先針對專利說明書及申請專利範圍之功能與定位進行說明；接著，以比較法探討美國及我國在法規範、行政準則及司法實務上之異同。其後根據比較法結果，探討、研析我國手段（步驟）功能用語請求項明確性要件之近期案例，以得出我國學習、改進之方向。本文認為，若嚴格要求手段（步驟）功能用語請求項僅得使用「手段用以」及「步驟用以」作為限制條件用語，應能使手段（步驟）功能用語之認定標準更為明確且易於理解；此外，專利申請人既受有以手段（步驟）功能用語方式撰寫請求項之便，要求其付出「於說明書撰寫對應功能用語結構、材料及動作」的對價應屬合理，故未於說明書中記載對應該功能用語之結構、材料及動作者，應以直接認定為不明確之手段（步驟）功能用語為宜。

關鍵字

手段功能用語；步驟功能用語；功能用語；申請專利範圍；明確性

並列摘要

This study proposed the appropriate judgment criteria for the identification and claim definiteness of means-plus-function and steps-plus-function. Firstly, the function and position of the patent specification and claim were explained. Then, the comparative method was used to explore the similarities and differences between the United States and Taiwan in terms of laws, regulations and judicial practices. Based on the results of comparative law, a related recent case was discussed and analyzed to acquire improvement advice in Taiwan. According to the results of this study, it would make the criteria for identification of means- (or step-) plus-function clearer and more comprehensible if the phrase used in claim limitation limited to “means for” or “step for”. In addition, it is reasonable for the patent applicant to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function since it is the price that must be paid for use of the convenience of means- (or step-) plus-function. Therefore, a means- (or step-) plus-function limitation should be indefinite if the specification failed to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function.