Research On Means-plus-functional Feature In Equpiment Claim

Throughout the development of the development of modern society, science and technology has become an inexhaustible motive force of the society progress. In patent examination guideline, we set out rules to protect invention involving computer program. If an invention involving computer program using technical means, solving technical problems and getting a technical effect, we could award it an invention patent.In Nokia v. Huaqin, the author raises two questions: First, how to define the involved claim, it is method claim, product claim or equipment claim. Second, if the involved claim contains functional technical(means-plus-functional) feature and how to explain it.This article include three parts, the first part will introduce Nokia Co. v. Huaqin Co. briefly. In this case, the court of first instance and the court of second instance thought: The disputed claim contains functional technical features, and they could not find how to define the specific implementation modalities according to the description.For the first question,The first quarter in the first part will do a study on equipment claim. Invention involving computer program is a method in essence, method claim is the best style for invention involving computer program. The patent examination guideline stipulates the applicants can add production claim or equipment claim after writing method claim. Equipment claim shall be written in accord with the computer program steps or the corresponding method claim. The realizing way of each part in the equipment claim is though computer program written in the description, and shall not be recognized as realized though physical device. The description of the equipment claim shall include how the computer program is realized, it shall include computer program step, main flow charts. The patent examination guideline stipulates if the inventions involving computer programs contain changed hardware, the description shall include hardware structure. Equipment claim shall not contain changed hardware. Equipment claim is a method in essence, if the description shall include the hardware structure? In this case, the court of first instance and the court of second instance seemingly recognized the equipment as physical device, and thought the description shall include hardware structure, but the description only includes means, step. The technician in this field can not realize the specific implementation modalities. Refer to the essence of equipment, the innovation point of the invention is in the method other than the hardware. In actual applying case, how the applicants chose between product claim and equipment claim. Analyzing specific applying case, when the applicant write product claim, if the technical feature uses method to define in the product claim, and it can only be realized by computer grogram written in description, the technicians in this field do not know other ways to realize this technical feature. Then the product claim can not be patented. If writing equipment claim, the technical feature meet the stipulation of patent examination guideline on equipment claim, this kind of claim can be accepted. Though analyzing of related applying case, invention involving computer program patents include large mount of equipment claims. In Nokia v. Huaqin, the argued claim is equipment claim.The second quarter of the second part will analyze if the equipment claim contain functional technical feature and how to explain it. If the equipment claim includes functional technical features, through specific case, the technical features using “set for” are probably functional technical features. Further we should confirm if the technical features belongs to the exception. In Nokia v. Huaqin, the court of second instance insisted the functional technical features should be recognized by the other element: If the technicians can define the technical features through reading the patent document, which the author thinks more reasonable. Further, how to explain the functional technical features. The court judges the case according to the Explain. Equipment claim has functional technical features, and how to recognize the specific implementation modalities of them. According to the first quarter, they shall be recognized through computer program step and main flow charts. In Nokia v. Huaqin, the court of first instance and the court of second instance seemingly thought the functional technical features could be recognized only when the specific hardware structure was published. According to American cases, the court thought the description shall include arithmetic other than specific hardware structure. According to the essence of equipment claim, our court should recognize the specific implementation modalities by the computer program steps and main flow charts.The third part will give some advice accord to Nokia v. Huaqin. First, giving advice to court judge, the court should distinguish equipment claim from other product claim. Second the functional technical features shall be explained according to the computer grogram steps and main flow charts. Three, the court shall exam the availability of patent. Giving advice to patent examination guideline: first, the patent examination guideline shall give definition to “invention realized all by computer program”, second, the patent examination guideline shall give special stipulation to guide how to write invention involving computer program which has changed hardware. The special stipulation will be easy for intellectual property office and the court checking the claim.