Source: http://beikokupat.com/us-patent/number2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:30:59+00:00

Document:
Tafas氏（個人）及びSmithkline Beecham社は、この規則改正最終案の施行差止め及び無効確認を求める訴訟をVirginia東部地区連邦地裁（Virginia地裁）に提起した。Virginia地裁は、規則改正最終案は実体的規則（substantive [rules]）であり、特許法第2条(b)(2)がUSPTOに認める規則制定権限の範囲を逸脱していると判断し、規則改正最終案の無効を確認し、施行の差止めを認めた。Tafas v. Dudas, 541 F.Supp.2d 805 (E.D. Va 2008).
連邦巡回区控訴裁は、「2+1ルール」及び「5/25ルール」は手続的ルール（procedural rules）であって、USPTOの規則制定権限の範囲内にあると判断した。その上で、連邦巡回区控訴裁は、規則改正最終案のうち、「3件目」の継続出願等又は「2件目」のRCEの制限については、特許法120条（35 U.S.C. 120 Benefit of earlier filing date in the United States.）に違反するので無効と判断したが、他の規定は有効と判断し、地裁判決を一部維持・一部破棄した上で、事件をVirginia地裁へ差し戻す判決をした。Tafas v. Doll, 559 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
これに対し、Tafas氏及びSmithkline Beecham社が大法廷による再審理請求をしたところ、連邦巡回区控訴裁大法廷はこれを認めて、上記連邦巡回区控訴裁判決を破棄し、事件の復活を認める旨の決定をした。Tafas v. Doll, 328 Fed.Appx. 658 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc order).
その後、USPTOは規則改正最終案を自発的に撤回し、及び、Smithkline Beecham社と和解した上で、両者が共同で、控訴取下げ及び地裁判決破棄の申請書を提出した。Tafas氏は控訴取下げには同意したが、地裁判決の破棄には異議を申し立てた。これに対し、連邦巡回区控訴裁大法廷は、控訴取下げを認めたが、地裁事件の敗訴の当事者であるUSPTOが規則改正最終案を自発的に撤回することで、事件の争訟性を一方的に喪失させたことを理由に、地裁判決の破棄を認めなかった。Tafas v. Kappos, 586 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc order) ([I]t was the USPTO (the losing party in the district court action) that acted unilaterally to render the case moot, and vacatur is not appropriate).
1. In an apparatus for determining the location of an obstruction in a well having therein a string of assembled tubing sections interconnected with each other by coupling collars, means communicating with said well for creating a pressure impulse in said well, echo receiving means including a pressure responsive device exposed to said well for receiving pressure impulses from the well and for measuring the lapse of time between the creation of the impulse and the arrival at said receiving means of the echo from said obstruction, and means associated with said pressure responsive device for tuning said receiving means to the frequency of echoes from the tubing collars of said tubing sections to clearly distinguish the echoes from said couplings from each other.
ちなみに、米国法でも、高裁レベルの判例間に矛盾が生じることはある。だが、その論点が重要である場合、然るべき時点で、統一される。たとえば、次の判例を参照されたい。Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (クレーム解釈について明細書等の内部証拠を重視する判例及び辞書等の外部証拠を重視する判例の並存を解消し、判例を前者に統一した事案); Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc in relevant part) (いわゆるプロダクト・バイ・プロセス・クレーム（product-by-process claims）の侵害論における解釈についてプロセスを含めて解釈する判例及びプロセスを無視して解釈する判例の並存を解消し、判例を前者に統一した事案).
（注９） Holland Furniture v. Perkins Glue, 277 U.S. 245 (1928).
Under these circumstances the broadness, ambiguity, and overhanging threat of the functional claim of Walker become apparent. … [I]f Walker’s blanket claims be valid, no device to clarify echo waves, now known or hereafter invented, whether the device be an actual equivalent of Walker’s ingredient or not, could be used in a combination such as this, during the life of Walker’s patent.
It is unquestionable that some measure of greater liberality in the use of functional expressions in combination claims is authorized than had been permitted by some court decisions and that decisions such as that in Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 6, 91 L.Ed. 3 (1946), are modified or rendered obsolete, but the exact limits of the enlargement remain to be determined.
The paragraph ends by stating that such a claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This relates primarily to the construction of such claims for the purpose of determining when the claim is infringed (note the use of the word “cover”), and would not appear to have much, if any, applicability in determining the patentability of such claims over the prior art, that is, the Patent Office is not authorized to allow a claim which “reads on” the prior art.
The record is clear on why paragraph six was enacted. In Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1, 67 S.Ct. 6, 91 L.Ed. 3 (1946), the Supreme Court held that means-plus-function language could not be employed at the exact point of novelty in a combination claim. Congress enacted paragraph six, originally paragraph three, to statutorily overrule that holding.
The proper statutory basis for the rejection of a single means claim is the requirement of the first paragraph of § 112 that the enabling disclosure of the specification be commensurate in scope with the claim under consideration.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112