In Maxwell, the patent claimed a system for attaching together a mated pair of shoes. 86 F.3d at 1101-02. Maxwell claimed fastening tabs between the inner and outer soles of the attached shoes. Maxwell disclosed in the specification, but did not claim, fastening tabs that could be “stitched into a lining seam of the shoes.” U.S. Patent No. 4,624,060, col. 2, l. 42. Based on the “well-established rule that ‘subject matter disclosed but not claimed in a patent application is dedicated to the public,’” this court held that Baker could not, as a matter of law, infringe under the doctrine of equivalents by using the disclosed but unclaimed shoe attachment system.
Maxwell, 86 F.3d at 1106 (quoting Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Brown, 939 F.2d 1558, 1562-63, 19 USPQ2d 1500, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
This court stated further:
By [Maxwell’s failure] to claim these alternatives, the Patent and Trademark Office was deprived of the opportunity to consider whether these alternatives were patentable. A person of ordinary skill in the shoe industry, reading the specification and prosecution history, and interpreting the claims, would conclude that Maxwell, by failing to claim the alternate shoe attachment systems in which the tabs were attached to the inside shoe lining, dedicated the use of such systems to the public. Maxwell, 86 F.3d at 1108.
(つづく)
【メモ】
Maxwellさんのクレームでは、
“each of said shoes further having a fastening tab [12] and means for securing said tab between said inner and outer soles“と規定。
明細書には、
….”Alternatively, the tabs may be stitched into a lining seam of the shoes at the sides or back of the shoes.”
と記載。
ちなみに、
lining：裏地
seam：縫い目、繋ぎ目
やはりこのシチュエーションであれば、法律問題として、権利が”between said inner and outer soles”のものに限定されても仕方ないように思う。
・meansクレームなので、”between said inner and outer soles”がなければ、”stitched into a lining seam”の侵害形態（およびその均等物）もカバー可能であった。この辺り、meansクレームの特性を十全に理解する必要がある（日本実務家の中にはmeansクレームを極端に嫌う人が多く、「means」の使用はやめてくれ、というクライアント企業も多いと思うが）。この点に関し、１９５２年の米国特許法改正（112条第6パラグラフ導入時）の趣旨も参照のこと。
・実際、USアトーニー（またはエージェント）作成の明細書や、判例などを見ると、meansクレームの使い方に関しては参考とすべきケースが多々ある。（結果的に、使って失敗例だったケースも勿論あるが。）
【その他】
Merry Christmas!
椿特許事務所
弁理士TY
