(法律资料)DOE案例学习分享之一-Graver案.pptVIP

What constitutes equivalency must be determined against the context of the patent, the prior art, and the particular circumstances of the case. Consideration must be given to the purpose for which an ingredient is used in a patent, the qualities it has when combined with the other ingredients, and the function which it is intended to perform. An important factor is whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was. A finding of equivalence is a determination of fact. Proof can be made in any form: through testimony of experts or others versed in the technology; by documents, including texts and treatises; and, of course, by the disclosures of the prior art. Like any other issue of fact, final determination requires a balancing of credibility, persuasiveness and weight of evidence. the patented composition, Unionmelt Grade 20, and the accused composition, Lincolnweld 660. The patent under which Unionmelt is made claims essentially a combination of alkaline earth metal silicate and calcium fluoride; Unionmelt actually contains, however, silicates of calcium and magnesium, two alkaline earth metal silicates. Lincolnwelds composition is similar to Unionmelts, except that it substitutes silicates of calcium and manganese - the latter not an alkaline earth metal - for silicates of calcium and magnesium. In all other respects, the two compositions are alike. The mechanical methods in which these compositions are employed are similar. They are identical in operation and produce the same kind and quality of weld. CN 答复OA——修改超范围 专题研究 Thanks 培训效果问题搜集 教唆侵权与间接侵权的定义及区别； 权利要求的修改适用“complete bar” or “flexible bar” ； 从属权利要求变为独立权利要求后的禁反言如何适用。 * * * * * * * DOE(Doctrine of Equivalent) 专题研究2011 * Graver Tank Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products (1950) Fulton 2011-08-24 DOE案例学习分享之一 提纲 1 US DOE Preview 2 Graver 案分析 3 后续事项 1 US DOE Preview DOE的位置 专利侵权 Patent Infringement 直接侵权 Direc