Determining Whether Claim Scope Is Clear When the Same Expression or Term Is Interpreted Differently

—(2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 485

[Holding]
If a person skilled in the art can reasonably determine, based on the claims and description and in light of the context, that the same expression or term in a claim has different meanings in different contexts, and that the claim scope is clear under those different meanings, the expression or term should be construed as having those different meanings; it should not be mechanically construed as having the same meaning and then treated as rendering the claim scope unclear.

[Keywords]
Administrative; utility model patent invalidation; clarity of claim scope; claim construction

[Facts]
Dongguan Ao… Automation Technology Co., Ltd. was the patentee of utility model patent No. 20192016****.9, titled “An automatic lock-pin assembly mechanism” (the Patent). Claim 1 of the Patent reads: “1. An automatic lock-pin assembly mechanism, comprising a support plate (1), characterized in that it further comprises a lock-pin pushing device (2), a lock-pin positioning and correcting device (3), a lock-pin pressing-down device (4) and a pressing-down driving device (5), wherein the support plate (1) is provided with a positioning hole (11) arranged on the same center line as a lock-pin mounting hole of a lock body, the lock-pin pushing device (2) is mounted on the support plate (1) and arranged on the same center line as the positioning hole (11), the pressing-down driving device (5) is mounted on the support plate (1), the lock-pin positioning and correcting device (3) is transmission-connected with the pressing-down driving device (5) so as to drive the lock-pin positioning and correcting device (3) to move up and down and to pass through the positioning hole (11) to mate and insert with a lock-pin positioning hole of the lock body, and the lock-pin pressing-down device (4) is transmission-connected with the pressing-down driving device (5) so as to drive the lock-pin pressing-down device (4) to move up and down and to pass through the positioning hole (11) to mate and insert with the lock-pin mounting hole on the lock body.”

On 11 December 2020, Zhejiang An… Intelligent Security Technology Co., Ltd. requested the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) to invalidate the Patent in its entirety. The main grounds included that the technical solution of claim 1 was unclear and incomplete, was not supported by the description, and did not comply with Article 26(4) of the Patent Law. Based on dependency, claims 2–7 likewise did not comply with Article 26(4).

On 29 June 2021, CNIPA issued Invalidation Decision No. 50688 (the Decision under Appeal), holding that the two occurrences of “the same center line” in claim 1 were contradictory; that a person skilled in the art, applying the common understanding in the art and reading the description, could not clearly define the protected scope of “the same center line”; that the overall technical solution of claim 1 was unclear and thus did not comply with Article 26(4); and that the additional features of claims 2–7 did not cure that deficiency, so those claims were also unclear. CNIPA accordingly invalidated the Patent in full. The patentee sued on 26 August 2021 seeking revocation of the Decision and an order that CNIPA remake the decision.

On 20 January 2023, the court of first instance dismissed the claim. The patentee appealed. On 24 December 2024, the Supreme People’s Court rendered administrative judgment (2023) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Xing Zhong No. 485, setting aside the first-instance judgment and the Decision, and ordering CNIPA to remake the invalidation decision concerning the request filed by Zhejiang An… against the Patent.

[Court’s Reasoning]
The effective judgment held that whether a claim clearly defines the patent’s protective scope must still be assessed from the perspective of a person skilled in the art, in light of the invention’s purpose, the entire disclosure of the description, and an overall understanding of the technical solution, after reasonable claim construction. Ordinarily, features limited by the same expression or term in the same claim have the same meaning. But if a person skilled in the art can reasonably determine from the claims and description, in context, that the expression or term has different meanings in different contexts, and that the claim scope is clear under those meanings, it should be so construed; one should not mechanically treat different meanings of the same expression as rendering the claim unclear.

In this case, first, although claim 1 twice uses “the same center line,” one instance concerns the lock-pin mounting hole of the lock body and the positioning hole, and the other concerns the lock-pin pushing device and the positioning hole; the different limitations and contexts mean the two occurrences need not share the same meaning. Their specific meanings must be assessed in light of the claim context and the overall technical solution. Second, reading the claims, paragraphs [0024]–[0030] of the description and the drawings shows that the main solution pushes the lock pin horizontally on the support plate to above the positioning hole, then presses it down through the positioning hole into the lock body. For “the lock-pin pushing device (2) is mounted on the support plate (1) and arranged on the same center line as the positioning hole (11),” a person skilled in the art would clearly not construe “the same center line” as coincidence with a vertical line, or the claimed solution could not achieve the invention’s purpose. Thus, “the same center line” in the positioning-hole limitation means longitudinal coincidence of the lock-pin mounting hole and the positioning hole, facilitating downward assembly; while in the pushing-device limitation it means the transverse center line of the pushing device passes through the center of the positioning hole, facilitating delivery of the pin above that hole. Under that construction, claim 1’s scope is clear. Third, although infinitely many transverse center lines on the support plate pass through the center of the positioning hole, so long as the pushing device’s transverse center line passes through that center and nothing blocks it, the function can be achieved; different angles remain the same technical solution. Finally, paragraph [0025] and Figure 3 show that components of the pushing device must have transverse center lines parallel to or coincident with that of the device to push the pin above the hole; the Decision’s view that different component positions create different solutions fell outside reasonable construction by a person skilled in the art. Accordingly, the Decision’s finding that claim 1’s overall scope was unclear and did not comply with Article 26(4) was improper.

[Related Index]
Article 26(4) of the Patent Law of the People’s Republic of China (the version applicable in this case is Article 26(4) of the Patent Law as in force from 1 October 2009)

Source：Intellectual Property Court of the Supreme People’s Court of China；2026-10-16；https://ipc.court.gov.cn/zh-cn/news/view-6162.html