【正文】 nsists of one sentence from the Court’s decision in Graham v. John Deere Co.: “While the ultimate question of patent validity is one of law, ... the 167。 法律術(shù)語(yǔ) “法律”和“事實(shí)” 被用于若干方面 ， 在目前的情況下，我們有必要去 給這個(gè)兩個(gè)術(shù)語(yǔ)下定義 。因此，在 對(duì) “法律 ”和 “事實(shí) ”問(wèn)題 進(jìn)行分類時(shí) ，法官和陪審團(tuán)的角色是至關(guān)重要的。 The principal argument advanced in favor of a more searching appellate review of findings... based solely on documentary evidence is that the rationale of Rule but, in explaining the change made that year, the Advisory Committee said: These considerations are outweighed by the public interest in the stability and judicial economy that would be promoted by recognizing that the trial court, not the appellate tribunal, should be the finder of the facts. To permit courts of appeals to share more actively in the factfinding function would tend to undermine the legitimacy of the district courts in the eyes of litigants, multiply appeals by encouraging appellate retrial of some factual issues, and needlessly reallocate judicial authority. 主要論點(diǎn)有利于推進(jìn) 搜索上訴審查 結(jié)果 ...純粹 證據(jù)的基礎(chǔ)是，規(guī)則的理由， 但是，在解釋改變這一年，咨詢委員會(huì)說(shuō)： 這些考慮 公眾輿論的 和司法經(jīng)濟(jì) 會(huì)被審判法庭，而不是 上訴法庭 要允許上訴法院 …… 。 8 cl. 8) but also a collateral challenge to findings of the Patent and Trademark Office. It is doubtful that the Supreme Court had occasion to consider the implications of this. Yet, it may well have had Bose (perhaps unconsciously) in mind when it remanded Dennison. If the CAFC, or ultimately the Supreme Court, believes that extraordinary review of facts in patent cases is warranted, consideration should be given to whether the “constitutional fact” doctrine might be usefully extended. Patent attorneys are fond of referring to the constitutional underpinnings of the patent system. Yet rarely will a case turn on them, and it is doubtful that any Supreme Court validity decision ever did. 考慮 專利的有效性 不適合其他任何實(shí)例的結(jié)果是否成立 。相反，盡管聲稱異議，法官納爾遜不承認(rèn)加入了新的要求 —— 更不用說(shuō)一 個(gè)由憲法規(guī)定的。在那里，有人認(rèn)為，多數(shù)是可以 扭轉(zhuǎn)，盡管 有 兩法庭規(guī)則。 但是， 無(wú)論在憲法或其他任何學(xué)說(shuō)應(yīng)當(dāng)用于這一目的，就轉(zhuǎn)變成了 另外一個(gè)問(wèn)題。 The CAFC might also attempt to distinguish nonobviousness on the basis of its technical difficulty and the tendency of fact finders to see inventions as obvious through hindsight. Still, neither that nor the tendency to Mondaymorning quarterback should any more justify extraordinary appellate review than it would justify withholding nonobviousness (or, for that matter, medical malpractice) from the jury altogether. 美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回法院 也可能試圖 在 技術(shù)難度 和 事實(shí)發(fā)現(xiàn)者 在看到事后明顯的虛構(gòu)物時(shí)的 傾向基礎(chǔ)上 ，分辨 非顯而易見(jiàn)性 。這將 猜想留給了 審判法庭和 法庭欄桿了 。 因此， “ 憲法事實(shí) ” 原則值得密切注意。 Regardless of the oute, everyone should appreciate an honest attempt to grapple with an issue in limbo far too long. In Dennison, the CAFC has an opportunity to shape the very foundations of patent litigation. It is to be hoped that the court will rise to the occasion. 無(wú)論結(jié)果如何，每個(gè)人都應(yīng)該明白一個(gè)誠(chéng)實(shí)的嘗試拼一明朗的問(wèn)題太長(zhǎng)。仔細(xì)觀察 后 ， 可能發(fā)現(xiàn) 這種審查是 毫無(wú)根據(jù)的 ，或者 落在了 一個(gè)公認(rèn)的例外范圍。 The Bottom Line 例外情況 The CAFC has full control of issues of patent law, subject only to legislative and Supreme Court oversight. When reviewing infringement litigation, whether there is a jury or not, it has the capacity, for example, to correct for the application of erroneous legal standards, to expand the application of principles, or to carve out exceptions to rules. 根據(jù)最高人民法院的立法和監(jiān)督 ， 美國(guó)聯(lián)邦巡回法院 有專利法 的 完全控制權(quán) 。 Is Nonobviousness a Special Case? 非顯而易見(jiàn)性是一個(gè)特殊的情形嗎？ Whatever the CAFC decides about the appropriate standard of review for nonobviousness, it ought also to address why that standard should differ from that applied to other validity requ