翻訳コラム

菓子生地の温度の判例です。原告は米国特許4,761,290の特許権者です。
クレーム1の“heating the resulting batter-coated dough to a temperature in the range of about 400.degree. F. to 850.degree. F." というフレーズの"to"という前置詞により権利行使ができなかった判例があります。(United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 03-1279, Chef America Inc. v.s. Lamb-Weston, Inc.)
このフレーズは「batter-coated dough(ころもでコーティングした生地)を約400°F~850°Fの温度まで加熱する」と読めますが、これが生地の温度ではなく、生地が加熱が生じる場所、つまりオーブンの温度であると原告は主張しました。
しかし前置詞toが使われているために、生地の温度であると解釈できます。オーブンの温度であればatが使われるはずです。
地裁とCAFC(連邦巡回控訴裁判所)はこれを生地がその温度まで加熱されると解釈しました。
実施例には、“oven at a temperature of 680.degree. F. to 850.degree. F."の記載があります。しかし権利行使の基礎となる肝心のクレームは"to"と記載されているため、生地を約400°F to 850°F"まで加熱すると解釈されてしまいました。原告は、その温度まで生地を加熱するとa charcoal briquetteに似たものになってしまうと主張しましたが、認められませんでした。
前置詞一つでこのように権利行使の有無が変わってしまいます。クレームの文言の重要性を改めて痛感します。

This is a court decision on the temperature of dough. In this case the Plaintiff is the patent owner of United States Patent No. 4,761, 290, whose patent recites part of the following in Claim 1: “heating the resulting batter-coated dough to a temperature in the range of about 400.degree. F. to 850.degree. F." Due to the interpretation of the preposition “to", however, the patent's rights could not be permitted. (United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 03-1279, Chef America Inc. v.s. Lamb-Weston, Inc.)
Here is the phrase in question: “batter-coated dough (dough coated with batter is heated to temperatures of about 400°F~850°F". The Plaintiff argued that this temperature demonstrates the temperature at which heating should take place, namely the temperature of the oven and not the temperature of the dough.
Since the preposition “to" however, was used, the “temperature" was interpreted to mean the temperature of the dough. The preposition “at" should have be used if the temperature demonstrates the temperature of the oven.
The district court and CAFC (US Court of Appeals for the Federal Court) then interpreted this as the temperature of the dough.
Here is a typical example of correct phrasing: “oven at a temperature of 680.degree. F. to 850.degree. F." However, because the essential wording in the Claims section used the word “to", the phrase was then interpreted to mean “dough is heated “to (the range of) 400°F to 850°F". The Plaintiff argued that heating dough to the temperatures recited in the Claims would produce a product like a charcoal briquette, however, the argument was not acknowledged by the district court. The entire validation of this patent was changed due to a single proposition. It is sobering to imagine how important the wording in the Claims section is.