In interpreting a claim, the exact language of such claim shall be recited without reading into it the contents of the specification and abstract, nor removing any part of such claim. If a term used in such claim is ambiguous or indefinite, this Court may refer to the specification and drawings to find out the meaning of such term as understood and recognized by persons with ordinary skill in the art. Additionally, when a claim is compared with a disputed product, the subjects for such comparison are the technical features, such as the elements and their mutual connections or operating relationships as they are indentified in the same claim. In the instant case, a great number of Plaintiff’s assertions are using the functions other than structural features as subjects of such comparison. For example, “Even though Defendant’s products do not have bearings, they have top tapped holes and bottom nuts which have the same fixing function as such bearings possess.” “Because Defendant’s products also use its supporting element E and connecting base G as a source to rotate the lamp base, the technical principle used in such products is the same with that in the disputed patent.” “According to the disputed patent, all lamp bases can rotate together with the main rotating plate, while each lamp base can rotate independently with their corresponding sub-rotating plate. So, Defendant’s products are identical with the disputed patent.”For the reasons as stated above, these assertions are obviously improper.

Patent Act: Article 108; Article 84, Paragraph 1 (front-end); Article 85, Paragraph 1, Subparagraph 2