也谈preamble对权利要求范围的限定

1 post / 0 new
milezhu
milezhu 的照片
也谈preamble对权利要求范围的限定

Bicon, inc. v. Straumann Co. C.A.Fed. (Mass), 2006

Claim 5 of US5,749,731 is as follows:

An emergence cuff member for use in preserving the interdental papilla during the procedure of placing an abutment on a root member implanted in the alveolar bone of a patient in which the abutment has a frusto-spherical basal surface portion and a conical surface portion having a selected height extending therefrom comprising a generally annular member formed of biocompatible synthetic plastic having first and second ends, a bore extending from the first to the second ends, the bore having a taper generally matching that of the conical surface portion of the abutment, the larger end of the bore being at the first end, the outer surface of the annular member forming a feathered edge with the bore at the first end of the annular member, the distance between the first and second ends being less than the height of the conical surface, the diameter of the cuff member increasing in the direction going from the first end to the second end, and a radially inwardly extending flexible lip formed at the first end of the cuff member.

因被告的产品不具有上述权利要求中的一个或者几个要素而判定不侵权。该权利要求中的abutment及其结构被解释为权利要求范围的限定要素,即limitation.

除此外,我有一个疑问,被告的其中一个产品,并非“for use in preserving the interdental papilla during the procedure of placing an abutment on a root member implanted in the alveolar bone of a patient”之用,被告为何不直接/或者法院怎么不直接说,function不同,肯定不侵权呢?
如果, “for..”该部分对权利要求没有影响,为什么写进去呢?

多谢指教