Johnson & Johnston Assocs. v. R.E. Service (5) [米国特許（判例）の研究]
（続き）
On appeal, RES does not challenge the jury’s factual finding of equivalency between the copper-steel and copper-aluminum laminates. Instead, citing Maxwell, RES argues that Johnston did not claim steel substrates, but limited its patent scope to aluminum substrates, thus dedicating to the public this unclaimed subject matter. On this ground, RES challenges the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment that RES’s copper-steel laminates are not equivalent, as a matter of law, to the claimed copper-aluminum laminates. Johnston responds that the steel substrates are not dedicated to the public, citing YBM Magnex. In other words, the two parties dispute whether Maxwell or YBM Magnex applies in this case with regard to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
・・・（続く）・・・
【参考：Mawell 特許4624060】
1. A system for attaching together mated pairs of shoes, which comprises in combination:
(A) a pair of shoes, each of which has an inner sole [16] and an outer sole [15], each shoe also having a shoe upper with an inside surface [17] and a top edge, each of said shoes further having a fastening tab [12] and means for securing said tab between said inner and outer soles,
(1) said fastening tab [12] being an integral sheet with two parts,
(2) the first of said parts [13] comprising one end of the elongated tab [12] extending horizontally between the inside surfaces of the outer sole [15] and inner sole [16] of the shoe and firmly secured thereto with said securing means,
(3) the second of said parts [14] comprising the opposite end of the elongated tab [12] extending from one edge of the inner sole [16] and vertically upward along but spaced from the inside surface of the shoe upper [17] and extending so that said opposite end remains beneath the top edge of said shoe upper,
(4) the second of said parts [14] having an aperture in the form of a loop formed by doubling the fastening tab [12] over on itself, and
(B) a filamentary fastening element [19] extending through the apertures of each of said fastening tabs [12], the ends of the filamentary element [19] being joined together in a closed loop;
whereby said pair of shoes is attached together by said fastening element [19] passing through the aperture in each of said tabs [12] so that on removal of said fastening element [19], said shoes separate and said tabs [12] are not visible outside said shoe uppers.
【メモ】
控訴審において、ＲＥＳ社は、陪審が、「銅－スチール」の積層構造と「銅－アルミ」の積層構造とを均等と判断した事実認定については争わなかった。
それに代えてＲＥＳ社は、Maxwell判決を引用し、Johnson社はスチールをクレームせずに、権利範囲をアルミに限定したので、スチールの権利は放棄されたものであると争った。
この観点からＲＥＳ社は、「銅－スチール」の積層構造は「銅－アルミ」の積層構造とは法律問題として均等とはいえない、とのサマリジャッジメントを地裁が却下したことを争った。
【その他】
事務所スペースが手狭になってきたこともあり、弊所では週末、観葉植物（大×６、小×２）を外部に運び出す作業を行ないます（日当たりの良いところで一旦休養させます。一年間お疲れ様でした。）。
皆さん、良い週末を！
椿特許事務所
弁理士TY
On appeal, RES does not challenge the jury’s factual finding of equivalency between the copper-steel and copper-aluminum laminates. Instead, citing Maxwell, RES argues that Johnston did not claim steel substrates, but limited its patent scope to aluminum substrates, thus dedicating to the public this unclaimed subject matter. On this ground, RES challenges the district court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment that RES’s copper-steel laminates are not equivalent, as a matter of law, to the claimed copper-aluminum laminates. Johnston responds that the steel substrates are not dedicated to the public, citing YBM Magnex. In other words, the two parties dispute whether Maxwell or YBM Magnex applies in this case with regard to infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.
・・・（続く）・・・
【参考：Mawell 特許4624060】
1. A system for attaching together mated pairs of shoes, which comprises in combination:
(A) a pair of shoes, each of which has an inner sole [16] and an outer sole [15], each shoe also having a shoe upper with an inside surface [17] and a top edge, each of said shoes further having a fastening tab [12] and means for securing said tab between said inner and outer soles,
(1) said fastening tab [12] being an integral sheet with two parts,
(2) the first of said parts [13] comprising one end of the elongated tab [12] extending horizontally between the inside surfaces of the outer sole [15] and inner sole [16] of the shoe and firmly secured thereto with said securing means,
(3) the second of said parts [14] comprising the opposite end of the elongated tab [12] extending from one edge of the inner sole [16] and vertically upward along but spaced from the inside surface of the shoe upper [17] and extending so that said opposite end remains beneath the top edge of said shoe upper,
(4) the second of said parts [14] having an aperture in the form of a loop formed by doubling the fastening tab [12] over on itself, and
(B) a filamentary fastening element [19] extending through the apertures of each of said fastening tabs [12], the ends of the filamentary element [19] being joined together in a closed loop;
whereby said pair of shoes is attached together by said fastening element [19] passing through the aperture in each of said tabs [12] so that on removal of said fastening element [19], said shoes separate and said tabs [12] are not visible outside said shoe uppers.
【メモ】
控訴審において、ＲＥＳ社は、陪審が、「銅－スチール」の積層構造と「銅－アルミ」の積層構造とを均等と判断した事実認定については争わなかった。
それに代えてＲＥＳ社は、Maxwell判決を引用し、Johnson社はスチールをクレームせずに、権利範囲をアルミに限定したので、スチールの権利は放棄されたものであると争った。
この観点からＲＥＳ社は、「銅－スチール」の積層構造は「銅－アルミ」の積層構造とは法律問題として均等とはいえない、とのサマリジャッジメントを地裁が却下したことを争った。
【その他】
事務所スペースが手狭になってきたこともあり、弊所では週末、観葉植物（大×６、小×２）を外部に運び出す作業を行ないます（日当たりの良いところで一旦休養させます。一年間お疲れ様でした。）。
皆さん、良い週末を！
椿特許事務所
弁理士TY
Johnson & Johnston Assocs. v. R.E. Service (4) [米国特許（判例）の研究]
(続き)
・・・
The jury found RES liable for willful infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and awarded Johnston $1,138,764 in damages. R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. at 4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 1998) (noting the Oct. 22, 1998 jury verdict). Exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 284, the district court enhanced Johnston’s damages -- doubling the jury’s assessment for lost profits and reasonable royalties, but not for price erosion. R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 1998). The court also awarded attorney fees and expenses under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Id.
・・・
【概要】
陪審は、均等論の下、RES社の故意侵害を認め、Johnson社に対して$1,138,764の賠償額を認めた。米国特許法２８４条の下、地裁はその賠償額を増額した。地裁はRES社に弁護士費用の出捐も求めた。
【参考条文】
35 U.S.C. 284 Damages.
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d) of this title.
The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.
35 U.S.C. 285 Attorney fees.
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
【個人メモ】
PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION
(To recover as compensation for the infringing activity)
(1) Compensatory Monetary Damage
> Actual Damage (Lost Profits)
> Reasonable Royalty
> Price erosion
(2) Interest
(3) Extraordinary Awards
> Increased Damage
> Attorney Fees
(4) Injunctions
(5) Summary of Damages
椿特許事務所
弁理士ＴＹ
・・・
The jury found RES liable for willful infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and awarded Johnston $1,138,764 in damages. R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. at 4 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 1998) (noting the Oct. 22, 1998 jury verdict). Exercising its discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 284, the district court enhanced Johnston’s damages -- doubling the jury’s assessment for lost profits and reasonable royalties, but not for price erosion. R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 1998). The court also awarded attorney fees and expenses under 35 U.S.C. § 285. Id.
・・・
【概要】
陪審は、均等論の下、RES社の故意侵害を認め、Johnson社に対して$1,138,764の賠償額を認めた。米国特許法２８４条の下、地裁はその賠償額を増額した。地裁はRES社に弁護士費用の出捐も求めた。
【参考条文】
35 U.S.C. 284 Damages.
Upon finding for the claimant the court shall award the claimant damages adequate to compensate for the infringement but in no event less than a reasonable royalty for the use made of the invention by the infringer, together with interest and costs as fixed by the court.
When the damages are not found by a jury, the court shall assess them. In either event the court may increase the damages up to three times the amount found or assessed. Increased damages under this paragraph shall not apply to provisional rights under section 154(d) of this title.
The court may receive expert testimony as an aid to the determination of damages or of what royalty would be reasonable under the circumstances.
35 U.S.C. 285 Attorney fees.
The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.
【個人メモ】
PATENT INFRINGEMENT LITIGATION
(To recover as compensation for the infringing activity)
(1) Compensatory Monetary Damage
> Actual Damage (Lost Profits)
> Reasonable Royalty
> Price erosion
(2) Interest
(3) Extraordinary Awards
> Increased Damage
> Attorney Fees
(4) Injunctions
(5) Summary of Damages
椿特許事務所
弁理士ＴＹ
Johnson & Johnston Assocs. v. R.E. Service (3) [米国特許（判例）の研究]
（昨日の続き）
...(omitted)... In 1997, RES began making new laminates for manufacture of printed circuit boards. The RES products, designated “SC2” and “SC3,” joined copper foil to a sheet of steel as the substrate instead of a sheet of aluminum. Johnston filed a suit for infringement. See R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 1998). In this case, the district court granted RES’s motion for summary judgment of no literal infringement. R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 1998). With respect to the doctrine of equivalents, RES argued, citing Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 39 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1996), that the ’ 050 specification, which disclosed a steel substrate but did not claim it, constituted a dedication of the steel substrate to the public. Johnston argued that the steel substrate was not dedicated to the public, citing YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that the ’ 050 patent did not dedicate the steel substrate to the public, and set the question of infringement by equivalents for trial, along with the issues of damages and willful infringement. R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 1998).
【概要】
ＲＥＳ（R.E. Service）社の製品では、アルミニウムシートに代えて、スチールが使われていた。ちなみにその前にも、Johnson & Johnston社とＲＥＳ社とは特許権侵害でもめており、ＲＥＳ社はスチールの使用が非侵害であると、ある程度確信していたものと思われる。
ＲＥＳ社は、文言非侵害に関するサマリジャッジメントを要請し、連邦地裁は文言非侵害を認めた。均等論非侵害に関して、ＲＥＳ社はMaxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 39 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1996)を引用し、「明細書に開示されていて、クレームされていない「スチール」は公に捧げられたものである」、と争った。
Johnson & Johnston社は、YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998)を引用し、、「スチールは公に捧げられたものではない」、と主張。
サマリジャッジメントで地裁は、Johnson & Johnston社の主張を認めた。
【メモ】
・サマリジャッジメント：事実に争点がない場合に、法律論のみを陪審によらずに審理する訴訟形態。なお、陪審による審理を受ける権利は、合衆国憲法修正７条に記載されている（下記）。
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
（修正第七条）
（コモンローの訴訟において、訴額が２０ドルを超える時は、陪審による審理を受ける権利が認められる。陪審により審理された事実は、コモンローのルールに従う場合以外は、合衆国のいずれの裁判所においても再度の審理を受けることはない。）（試訳）
陪審は、一般に特許権者側に有利な見解を示すことが多いので、被告側はサマリジャッジメントに持ち込んだ方が有利な場合が多い、と言われる。（なお事実に争点がないことの立証責任は、サマリジャッジメントの申立者が負う。）
（つづく）
椿特許事務所
弁理士ＴＹ
...(omitted)... In 1997, RES began making new laminates for manufacture of printed circuit boards. The RES products, designated “SC2” and “SC3,” joined copper foil to a sheet of steel as the substrate instead of a sheet of aluminum. Johnston filed a suit for infringement. See R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. at 2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 1998). In this case, the district court granted RES’s motion for summary judgment of no literal infringement. R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 1998). With respect to the doctrine of equivalents, RES argued, citing Maxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 39 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1996), that the ’ 050 specification, which disclosed a steel substrate but did not claim it, constituted a dedication of the steel substrate to the public. Johnston argued that the steel substrate was not dedicated to the public, citing YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the district court ruled that the ’ 050 patent did not dedicate the steel substrate to the public, and set the question of infringement by equivalents for trial, along with the issues of damages and willful infringement. R.E. Serv. Co. v. Johnson & Johnston Assocs., No. C-97-04382 CRB, slip op. (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 1998).
【概要】
ＲＥＳ（R.E. Service）社の製品では、アルミニウムシートに代えて、スチールが使われていた。ちなみにその前にも、Johnson & Johnston社とＲＥＳ社とは特許権侵害でもめており、ＲＥＳ社はスチールの使用が非侵害であると、ある程度確信していたものと思われる。
ＲＥＳ社は、文言非侵害に関するサマリジャッジメントを要請し、連邦地裁は文言非侵害を認めた。均等論非侵害に関して、ＲＥＳ社はMaxwell v. J. Baker, Inc., 86 F.3d 1098, 39 USPQ2d 1001 (Fed. Cir. 1996)を引用し、「明細書に開示されていて、クレームされていない「スチール」は公に捧げられたものである」、と争った。
Johnson & Johnston社は、YBM Magnex, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm’n, 145 F.3d 1317, 46 USPQ2d 1843 (Fed. Cir. 1998)を引用し、、「スチールは公に捧げられたものではない」、と主張。
サマリジャッジメントで地裁は、Johnson & Johnston社の主張を認めた。
【メモ】
・サマリジャッジメント：事実に争点がない場合に、法律論のみを陪審によらずに審理する訴訟形態。なお、陪審による審理を受ける権利は、合衆国憲法修正７条に記載されている（下記）。
Amendment 7 - Trial by Jury in Civil Cases. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
（修正第七条）
（コモンローの訴訟において、訴額が２０ドルを超える時は、陪審による審理を受ける権利が認められる。陪審により審理された事実は、コモンローのルールに従う場合以外は、合衆国のいずれの裁判所においても再度の審理を受けることはない。）（試訳）
陪審は、一般に特許権者側に有利な見解を示すことが多いので、被告側はサマリジャッジメントに持ち込んだ方が有利な場合が多い、と言われる。（なお事実に争点がないことの立証責任は、サマリジャッジメントの申立者が負う。）
（つづく）
椿特許事務所
弁理士ＴＹ
Johnson & Johnston Assocs. v. R.E. Service (2) [米国特許（判例）の研究]
（昨日の続き）
The specification further describes the composition of the substrate sheet:
While aluminum is currently the preferred material for the substrate, other metals, such as stainless steel or nickel alloys, may be used. In some instances . . . polypropelene [sic] can be used.
’050 patent, col. 5, ll. 5-8.
As noted, the jury found infringement of claims 1 and 2:
Claim 1.
A component for use in manufacturing articles such as printed circuit boards comprising:
a laminate constructed of a sheet of copper foil which, in a finished printed circuit board, constitutes a functional element and a sheet of aluminum which constitutes a discardable element;
one surface of each of the copper sheet and the aluminum sheet being essentially uncontaminated and engageable with each other at an interface,
a band of flexible adhesive joining the uncontaminated surfaces of the sheets together at their borders and defining a substantially uncontaminated central zone inwardly of the edges of the sheets and unjoined at the interface.
‘050 patent, Claim 1, col. 8, ll. 47-60 (emphasis supplied). Claim 2 defines a similar laminate having sheets of copper foil adhered to both sides of the aluminum sheet.
【メモ】
・実施例には、「アルミニウムが目下のところ基材として好適な物質であるが、例えばステンレススチール、ニッケル合金など他の金属を用いることもでき、他の例として・・・ポリプロピレンを用いることもできる。」と記載されていた。
クレームには、「アルミニウム」のみが記載されていた。
・しかしなぜ故、アルミに限定されたクレームとなったのか不明（包袋記録を見ればわかるのかも）。均等を狙ったのか、先行技術があったのか、あるいは何も考えていなかったのか？これなら、meansクレームとした方が広いのかもしれない。
・クレームで「essentially」、「substantially」が使われている点は、権利が広くなっており好ましい。
椿特許事務所
弁理士ＴＹ
The specification further describes the composition of the substrate sheet:
While aluminum is currently the preferred material for the substrate, other metals, such as stainless steel or nickel alloys, may be used. In some instances . . . polypropelene [sic] can be used.
’050 patent, col. 5, ll. 5-8.
As noted, the jury found infringement of claims 1 and 2:
Claim 1.
A component for use in manufacturing articles such as printed circuit boards comprising:
a laminate constructed of a sheet of copper foil which, in a finished printed circuit board, constitutes a functional element and a sheet of aluminum which constitutes a discardable element;
one surface of each of the copper sheet and the aluminum sheet being essentially uncontaminated and engageable with each other at an interface,
a band of flexible adhesive joining the uncontaminated surfaces of the sheets together at their borders and defining a substantially uncontaminated central zone inwardly of the edges of the sheets and unjoined at the interface.
‘050 patent, Claim 1, col. 8, ll. 47-60 (emphasis supplied). Claim 2 defines a similar laminate having sheets of copper foil adhered to both sides of the aluminum sheet.
【メモ】
・実施例には、「アルミニウムが目下のところ基材として好適な物質であるが、例えばステンレススチール、ニッケル合金など他の金属を用いることもでき、他の例として・・・ポリプロピレンを用いることもできる。」と記載されていた。
クレームには、「アルミニウム」のみが記載されていた。
・しかしなぜ故、アルミに限定されたクレームとなったのか不明（包袋記録を見ればわかるのかも）。均等を狙ったのか、先行技術があったのか、あるいは何も考えていなかったのか？これなら、meansクレームとした方が広いのかもしれない。
・クレームで「essentially」、「substantially」が使われている点は、権利が広くなっており好ましい。
椿特許事務所
弁理士ＴＹ
Johnson & Johnston Assocs. v. R.E. Service (DECIDED: March 28, 2002) [米国特許（判例）の研究]
重要判例を読み直す。
JOHNSON & JOHNSTON ASSOCIATES INC. v. R.E. SERVICE CO., INC. and MARK FRATER
DECIDED: March 28, 2002
(対象特許：USP 5,153,050)
明細書に開示されており、クレームされていなかった発明（構成）に均等論が適用されるかが問題となったケース。
発明は、脆い銅箔（foil）を、硬い「アルミニウム」のシートの担体に張り付けることで、銅箔の破損とコンタミネーションとを防止するもの。
....
I.
The ’ 050 patent, which issued October 6, 1992, relates to the manufacture of printed circuit boards. Printed circuit boards are composed of extremely thin sheets of conductive copper foil joined to sheets of a dielectric (nonconductive) resin-impregnated material called “prepreg.” The process for making multi-layered printed circuit boards stacks sheets of copper foil and prepreg in a press, heats them to melt the resin in the prepreg, and thereby bonds the layers.
In creating these circuit boards, workers manually handle the thin sheets of copper foil during the layering process. Without the invention claimed in the ’050 patent, stacking by hand can damage or contaminate the fragile foil, causing discontinuities in the etched copper circuits. The ’ 050 patent claims an assembly that prevents most damage during manual handling. The invention adheres the fragile copper foil to a stiffer substrate sheet of aluminum. With the aluminum substrate for protection, workers can handle the assembly without damaging the fragile copper foil. After the pressing and heating steps, workers can remove and even recycle the aluminum substrate. Figure 5 of the ’ 050 patent shows the foil-substrate combination, with the foil layer peeled back at one corner for illustration:
Surface C i is the protected inner surface of the copper foil; A i is the inner surface of the aluminum substrate. A band of flexible adhesive 40 joins the substrate and the foil at the edges, creating a protected central zone CZ. The specification explains:
Because the frail, thin copper foil C was adhesively secured to its aluminum substrate A, the [laminate] is stiffer and more readily handled resulting in far fewer spoils due to damaged copper foil.
The use of the adhered substrate A, regardless of what material it is made of, makes the consumer’s (manufacturer’s) objective of using thinner and thinner foils and ultimately automating the procedure more realistic since the foil, by use of the invention, is no longer without the much needed physical support.
（判決文は続く）
椿特許事務所
弁理士ＴＹ
JOHNSON & JOHNSTON ASSOCIATES INC. v. R.E. SERVICE CO., INC. and MARK FRATER
DECIDED: March 28, 2002
(対象特許：USP 5,153,050)
明細書に開示されており、クレームされていなかった発明（構成）に均等論が適用されるかが問題となったケース。
発明は、脆い銅箔（foil）を、硬い「アルミニウム」のシートの担体に張り付けることで、銅箔の破損とコンタミネーションとを防止するもの。
....
I.
The ’ 050 patent, which issued October 6, 1992, relates to the manufacture of printed circuit boards. Printed circuit boards are composed of extremely thin sheets of conductive copper foil joined to sheets of a dielectric (nonconductive) resin-impregnated material called “prepreg.” The process for making multi-layered printed circuit boards stacks sheets of copper foil and prepreg in a press, heats them to melt the resin in the prepreg, and thereby bonds the layers.
In creating these circuit boards, workers manually handle the thin sheets of copper foil during the layering process. Without the invention claimed in the ’050 patent, stacking by hand can damage or contaminate the fragile foil, causing discontinuities in the etched copper circuits. The ’ 050 patent claims an assembly that prevents most damage during manual handling. The invention adheres the fragile copper foil to a stiffer substrate sheet of aluminum. With the aluminum substrate for protection, workers can handle the assembly without damaging the fragile copper foil. After the pressing and heating steps, workers can remove and even recycle the aluminum substrate. Figure 5 of the ’ 050 patent shows the foil-substrate combination, with the foil layer peeled back at one corner for illustration:
Surface C i is the protected inner surface of the copper foil; A i is the inner surface of the aluminum substrate. A band of flexible adhesive 40 joins the substrate and the foil at the edges, creating a protected central zone CZ. The specification explains:
Because the frail, thin copper foil C was adhesively secured to its aluminum substrate A, the [laminate] is stiffer and more readily handled resulting in far fewer spoils due to damaged copper foil.
The use of the adhered substrate A, regardless of what material it is made of, makes the consumer’s (manufacturer’s) objective of using thinner and thinner foils and ultimately automating the procedure more realistic since the foil, by use of the invention, is no longer without the much needed physical support.
（判決文は続く）
椿特許事務所
弁理士ＴＹ
