米国 CAFCデシジョン ミーンズ・プラス・ファンクション（メモ）

（情報追加：08/12/18）
CAFCで、工作機械（溶接機）の工具固定冶具の工作物クランクピンの機構に関する特許訴訟でUS6,913,254（注１）クレーム中で”mechanism”との何の修飾もない用語を使用したことによりこのクレームがmeans-plus-functionクレームに相当するとのデシジョンが12月15日下された。CAFCの判例で”means”との用語がクレームにおいて使用されていない場合、「means-plus-functionクレームに相当しないとの強い推定が働く」との判示（注２)があるものの、何の修飾もない“mechanism”という用語は（この判示に示された強い推定を覆して）"means"に相当するとされた（注３）。

(注1) US6,913,254
What is claimed is:
1. A locating and clamping assembly comprising:
a body defining an internal cavity and an opening from said cavity to the exterior of said body;
a locating pin disposed in said cavity and extending along an axis A out of said opening to a distal end;
an actuator for moving said locating pin rectilinearly along said axis A into and out of said opening;
at least one finger supported by said locating pin adjacent said distal end;
said assembly characterized by a mechanism for moving said finger along a straight line into and out of said locating pin perpendicular to said axis A in response to said rectilinear movement of said locating pin.

(注2) Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1360
In light of the principles discussed above, it is not surprising that we have seldom held that a limitation not using the term "means" must be considered to be in means-plus-function form. In fact, we have identified only one published opinion since Greenberg in which we have done so, and that case provides a useful illustration of how unusual the circumstances must be to overcome the presumption that a limitation lacking the word "means" is not in means-plus-function form.

(注3) Decision
Thus, the unadorned term “mechanism” is “simply a nonce word or a verbal construct that is not recognized as the name of structure and is simply a substitute for the term ‘means for.’” Lighting World, 382 F.3d at 1360.

------------08/12/17----------------
"mechanism"が"means"と同じ意味だとしてクレームがミーンズ・プラス・ファンクションと見なされた例。
かなり、厳しいなあ。今回の例のような"mechanism"の使い方なら既に山ほどしてるよ。手当しないといけないかな・・・

Means-Plus-Function Fools Gold (from PatentlyO)
　Welker Bearing v. PhD, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Mechanism For: Welker's patent claims a clamping mechanism for holding parts in place when welding. The appeal focuses on construction of a "mechanism for moving said finger." Affirming a prior similar ruling, the Federal Circuit found that the claim structure "mechanism for [performing a function]" is presumptively interpreted as a means-plus-function claim element.

"The term 'mechanism' standing alone connotes no more structure than the term 'means.'" Quoting MIT v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Instead of claiming a "mechanism for moving said finger," the patentee could have claimed a "finger displacement mechanism." Opining on that counterfactual, the Federal Circuit noted that it would not have presumed a means-plus-function construction.

"If claim 1 … had recited, e.g., a "finger displacement mechanism," a "lateral projection/retraction mechanism," or even a "clamping finger actuator," this court could have inquired beyond the vague term "mechanism" to discern the understanding of one of skill in the art...(more)

私はここで言う、当業者にあたります。ex-技術者の視点で言わせてもらうなら、以下の記述があれば十分メカニズムの具体的構成は数種類頭に浮かびます。
mechanism for moving said finger along a straight line into and out of said locating pin.. (from US6,913,254 claim1)

こんな記述はは当業者にとって何の意味もありません。
"finger displacement mechanism," a "lateral projection/retraction mechanism," or even a "clamping finger actuator,"　

まあ、これが不可解な特許の世界の常識だと思いつつも腑に落ちない・・・