--- סוף עמוד 73 ---
Have a material effect upon the way the invention worked. Nor does it the question, of course, does not arise where the variant would in fact Obvious to the informed reader that this was so. Where i is not obvious arise unless at the date of publication of the specification it would be Existing knowledge, the reader is entitled to assume-that the patentee thought at the time of the specification that he had in the light of then So, even though subsequent work by him or others in the field of the good reason for limiting his monopoly so strictly and had intended to do Answered in the negative only when it would be apparent to any reader invention might show the limitation to have been unnecessary. It is to be The art, to exclude minor variants which, to the knowledge of both him claim cannot have been intended by a patentee, who was also skilled in skilled in the art that a particular descriptive word or phrase used in a . And the readers to whom the patent was addressed, could have no"material effect upon the way in which the invention worked דברים אלה היו חדשניים בפי אומרם, אולם כיום זו ההלכה השלטת באנגליה ובבתי המשפט של מדינות המקובל (ראה, למשל, האסמכתאות, מבית המשפט לערעורים המאוזכרות אצל . 20N 162cornish, supra, at).
נטילת מהותה של האמצאה תיתכן גם בדרך של החלפת הרכיבים המוגנים בתביעות ברכיבים אחרים, שונים מהם. כדי להתמודד עם הפרות מעין אלה פותחה דוקטרינת האקוויוולנטים. בארצות-הברית משמשת דוקטרינה זו אבן בוחן מרכזית בשאלת עיקר האמצאה, והיא תוארה בהילכת 609- 608, supra, at[15] graver tank: The essence of the doctrine is that one may not practice a fraud on a" patent... To temper unsparing logic and prevent an infringer from To proceed against the producer of a device if it performs substantially stealing the benefit of an invention' a patentee may invoke this doctrine The same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same Same work in substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially result'. The theory on which it is founded is that if two devices do the ,form or shape'... What constitutes equivalency must be determined the same result, the are the same, even though they differ in name Circumstances of the case... It does not require complete identity for against the context of the patent, the prior art, and the particular Purpose for which an ingredient is used in a patent, the qualities it has every purpose and in every respect... Consideration must be given to the