真做利 希望所有的利工程 都能真做利

21的鼓 0站台

一般的解

device需要capable of Ving (而不是device可以modified之後再行Ving)

考Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

The court explained that the apparatus as provided must be “capable” of performing the recited function, not that it might later be modified to perform that function.

不programed是不是modified呢?

在TYPHOON TOUCH TECHNOLOGIES, INC., v. DELL, INC (Decided: November 4, 2011)

於memory for storing

CAFC有直接回答programed是不是modified

也有直接解

“memory for storing”是指memory可以存程式(data collection application)?

或是memory已存程式?

而是回去specification看Summary

See ’057 patent, col. 2 ll. 64-65 (“[T]he memory of the portable computer stores a data collection application.”)

所以此案的memory for storing就被解成memory storing

the “memory for storing” clause requires that the memory is actually programmed or configured to store the data collection application.

美利律Ryan Alley建

When writing a computer apparatus claim, any functionality recited in connection with the claim elements will very likely be required programming for infringement. This applies to language like “a memory for storing [X type of data]” or a “processor configured to execute [X type of program].” There may be some latitude or less concern for processors, as most general purpose processors are capable of executing a variety of functions and programs without further modification. Nonetheless, when writing computer claims, write the claim with intended infringers in mind. Do not include functionality in a claim that is not installed, not configured, or would require additional programming beyond that provided by the intended infringer. Similarly, when amending computer claims to recite functionality to overcome prior art, do not expect to get infringement against general purpose computing devices that merely could be programmed to achieve the recited functionality.