之前,笔者曾撰文就权利要求书中“功能性限定”的解释谈了点看法。文章发表后,笔者查阅了国内外一些与“功能性限定”相关的案例。在查阅案例的过程中,心中又产生了一些疑惑,引发了笔者对“功能性限定”问题的进一步思考。现将笔者的疑惑及建议简述如下,以与关心此问题者做进一步交流。一、案例介绍“电池外壳的制造方法”无效宣告请求案(深圳市比克电池有限公司V.深圳华粤宝电池有限公司)(下称比克案)是业内近几年比较受关注的一个案件。之所以关注,是因为此案集中体现了国家知识产权局制定的《专利审查指南》(下称《审查指南》)与《最高人民法院关于审理侵犯专利权纠纷案件应用法律若干问题的解释》(下称《法释》)对权利要求中“功能性限定”的 Previously, I had written on the claims of “functional limitations” to explain the point of view. After the article was published, the author consulted some domestic and foreign cases related to “functional limitation”. In the course of referring to the case, some puzzled thoughts have arisen in my mind, triggering the author’s further thinking on the issue of “functional limitation”. Now the author’s doubts and suggestions outlined below, with those who care about this issue to do further exchanges. First, the case introduction “manufacturing method of battery case ” invalidation claim (Shenzhen BAK Battery Co., Ltd. V. Shenzhen Huayuebao Battery Co., Ltd.) (hereinafter referred to as BAK case) is the industry more concerned about the recent years A case The reason for this concern is that the case focuses on the interpretation of the Guide for Patent Examination (hereinafter referred to as “Guide for Examination of the Patent”) formulated by the State Intellectual Property Office and the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Cases of Infringement on Patent Disputes Hereinafter referred to as “legal interpretation”) to the claim “functional limitations”