Abstract：Technical features are fundamental terms in the field of patent law,but neither patent law nor patent examination guidelines define such important terms,resulting in difficulties in the application of technical features.By reviewing the development process of the claim system,it can be seen that although claims play a role in defining the scope of patent rights.But in reality,what functions as a boundary of right are the elements that constitute the claims,namely technical features.Having gone through the pre patent law era and its application in the field of patent law,the terminology of technical features has transformed from a tool for understanding and expressing technology to a tool for defining rights with normative significance.The definition and analysis of technical features help to eliminate the confusion among various terms.However,the definition of technical features causes the division of technical features to depend on the abstraction degree of technical functions,leading to uncertainty in the magnitude of the division of technical features.With the dichotomy principle of fact and value as the theoretical basis,the abstraction level of technical functions of different value judgments should be measured in combination with the specific situation and supported by practical reasons,so as to realize the rationalization and standardization of the division of technical features.
[1]新型环锭精纺机技术特征[J].山东纺织科技动态,1973 (7):39-42. [2]董妍,崔琳,王立石,等.权利要求保护范围在专利审查和司法解释中的差异分析[J].知识产权,2013 (7):37-40,76. [3]闫文军.专利权的保护范围[M].2版.北京:法律出版社,2018. [4]陈文煊.权利要求的边界——权利要求的文义解释与保护范围的政策调整[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2014. [5]尹新天.专利权的保护[M].2版.北京:知识产权出版社,2005. [6]CUNYNGHAME H.English patent practice:with acts,rules,forms,and prec-edents[M].London:William Clowes and Sons,1894. [7]TERRELL T.The law and practice relating to letters patent for inventions[M].London:Sweet & Sons,1889. [8]陈文煊.权利要求的边界——权利要求的文义解释与保护范围的政策调整[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2014. [9]BENDER G.Uncertainty and unpredictability in patent litigation:the time is ripe for a consistent claim construction methodology[J].Journal of intellectual property law,2001,8 (2):209-210. [10]KAHRL R,SOFFER S.Thesaurus of claim construction[M].New York:Oxford University Press,2011. [11]梁志文.专利权的界定:沟通权利要求的解释与公开充分性[J].清华知识产权评论,2015 (1):81-102. [12]何晓平.专利等同侵权研究[D].成都:西南政法大学,2009. [13]Catnic Components Limited and Another v.Hill & Smith Limited[R].Reports of patent design & trade mark cases,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1982,99 (9):183-246. [14]徐棣枫.专利权的扩张与限制[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2007. [15]江镇华.关于专利侵权的判定[J].中国法学,1988 (3):29-32. [16]崔忠武.论专利权保护范围界定的原则[J].中共青岛市委党校.青岛行政学院学报,2009 (9):92-95. [17]王金福,徐钊.论对文本的理解与对事物的认识的区别——兼论解释学和哲学相互过渡的逻辑通道[J].江苏社会科学,2010 (4):4-9. [18]熊文聪.事实与价值二分:知识产权法的逻辑与修辞[M].武汉:华中科技大学出版社,2016:69. [19][古希腊]亚里士多德.物理学[M].张竹明,译,北京:商务印书馆,1982. [20]洛克.人类理解论[M].关文运,译,北京:商务印书馆,1983. [21]吴军.数学之美[M].北京:人民邮电出版社,2012. [22]HERMANN K,WILFRIED S.The New German Patent Law (1981)in English and German[M].Weiheim:Verlag Chemie 1981:74-75. [23]赵元果.中国专利法的孕育与诞生[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2003. [24]GARNER B.Black's Law Dictionary[M].8th ed.Saint Paul:Thomson West,2004. [25]MARTIN E. A Dictionary of Law[M].Oxford:Oxford University Press,2003. [26]中华人民共和国国家知识产权局.专利审查指南 (2010)[M].北京:知识产权出版社,2010. [27]倪朱亮,陈阳.云平台环境中专利执法的联动机制研究[J].重庆邮电大学学报 (社会科学版),2021,33 (3):62-71. [28]黄伟力.法律逻辑学新论[M].上海:上海交通大学出版社,2000. [29]闻秀元.如何对技术方案进行特征区别[M]//程永顺.专利侵权判定实务.北京:法律出版社,2002. [30]于波,祖子涵.知识产权鉴定中技术特征分解方法的选择——以专利为视角分析[J].中国司法鉴定,2021 (6):77. [31]休谟.人性论 (下册)[M].关文运,译,北京:商务印书馆,1996. [32]毛立华.论证据与事实[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2008. [33]赵承寿.司法裁判中的事实问题[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2015. [34]梁上上.利益衡量论[M].2版.北京:法律出版社,2016.
2024, 
