<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="max-width: 100%; line-height: 26.0400009155273px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; word-wrap: break-word !important;">原告主張引證之擴散板並非等同於系爭專利之濾光片。然查：</span><span style="max-width: 100%; line-height: 26.0400009155273px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; word-wrap: break-word !important;">從系爭專利說明書內容及各辭典之解釋，</span><span style="max-width: 100%; line-height: 26.0400009155273px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; word-wrap: break-word !important;">系爭專利申請專利範圍第所載之濾光片及引證之擴散板均具將平行光</span><span style="max-width: 100%; line-height: 26.0400009155273px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; word-wrap: break-word !important;">轉變成朝不同方向各別行進光線之功效，</span><span style="max-width: 100%; line-height: 26.0400009155273px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; word-wrap: break-word !important;">是兩者為差異僅在於文字的記載形式，</span><span style="max-width: 100%; line-height: 26.0400009155273px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; word-wrap: break-word !important;">但實質上並無差異之技術特徵，是原告主張並無足取~</span><span style="max-width: 100%; line-height: 26.0400009155273px; color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-weight: bold; word-wrap: break-word !important;">宏景智權專利商標法律事務所提供参考(業道酬精)</span></span></p>

<p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: small;">相關連結 &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160; &#160;<a href="http://weibo.com/p/1001603839831716292037" target="_blank"><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255);">http://weibo.com/p/1001603839831716292037</span></a></span></p>

<p style="text-align: left;"></p>