3.The interpretation of “foam middle portion” in Claim 1 of the patent at dispute is as follows:

(1) The claim construction centers on the words recited in a claim. Then, it figures out the plain meaning of such a word which a person of ordinary skill in the art of such new model patent recognized or understood at the time when the application was filed. Except that an applicant has provides a clear definition in the specification, if the applicant has no obvious intent to give such a word another meaning, such the word will be presumed to have its ordinary and accustomed meaning recognized or understood by a person of ordinary skill.

(2) Regarding Claim 1 “the front textile component and back textile component of the breast cup, respectively combined with a foam layer in the inner surface, so that the foam middle portions of the front textile component and back textile component respectively stick to a soft supporting pad” in the patent at dispute, both parties also argued the definition of middle portion. Appellee asserted that “foam middle portion” should be contrary to “foam outer portion.” That is, when the soft supporting pad is placed in the foam middle, it is necessary to keep the outer portion, so that the foams can act to stick to one another. The “middle portion” is determined to be the whole scope of what is within the outer portion. Such the scope is the “middle portion.” Within such the scope, a setting arrangement formed to be upper, lower, more left, or more right is not beyond the relevant definition or restriction (See March 19, 2012 Civil Argument Brief, Page 8). In addition, on March 22, 2012 in the oral argument, Figure 5 of the patent at dispute was chosen as an example to explain that the soft supporting pad does not look like being placed in the exactly middle position. However, Appellant argued, “Because the claim construction depends on the recited words, ‘zhong jian’ (middle) and ‘zhong yang‘ (center) all mean “middle position” in terms of the national language. There is no reason to alter its plain meaning so that “middle” can be construed as what covers the whole portion of ‘what is outside the contour of the foam’ (See December 30, 2010 Petition to the Supreme Court, Second Appellate Brief, Page 5). Compared with Figure 2 in the specification of the patent at dispute, where the soft supporting pad (marked with a dash line) of the breast cup is placed in the central portion of the front textile component or back textile component and where the location is spotlighting, it is not like Appellee’s assertion that for the ‘lower’ portion, when the breast cup is placed in a way illustrated in Figure 5, the liquid in the soft supporting pad moves downward collectively because of the principles of gravity. That makes people misunderstand that the position is ‘lower.’” (See September 22, 2011 Second Civil Preparation Brief, Page 3, Point 2).

(3) We find that the patent at dispute does not provide “middle partition” with a particular definition or explanation in the claims or description of the creation. Therefore, the creator/Appellee has no obvious intent to provide a special meaning to “middle portion” in the patent at dispute. That term is presumed to mean its ordinary and accustomed meaning in views of a person of ordinary skill.

(4) Additionally, the creation purpose of the patent at dispute is to improve the soft supporting pad of the traditional breast cup which causes some problems when used for the combination or fixation, to make the soft supporting pad more precise for positioning for assembly, and to make the operation of assembly more efficient. According to the literal meaning of Claim 1 of the patent at dispute, where Claim 1 recites “so that the foam middle portions of the front textile component and back textile component respectively stick to a soft supporting pad,” it can be concluded that “middle portion” is the sticking position that separates the soft supporting pad and foam. Moreover, the ordinary meaning of “middle” is “center; a central position.” Refer to Figure 2 (which is a three-dimensional drawing of the embodiment) in the specification of the patent at dispute again. It also can be seen that the soft supporting pad is located at the central position of the front textile component or back textile component (foam-combined textile) but not at the “lower” position. That is, although the patent at dispute does not provide a particular meaning to “middle portion” in the specification, it is not to say that because of the following statement “the outer portions of those foams are then stick to each other directly,” therefore, “middle portion” can be construed broadly to, in terms of determination, mean generally the whole scope of what is within the outer portion. Such the scope is “middle portion.” Thus, within such the scope, a setting arrangement formed to be upper, lower, more left, or more right is not beyond the relevant definition or restriction. As for Figure 5 of the patent at dispute, Appellee cited it as an example to explain that the soft supporting pad does not look like being placed in the middle. However, the scope of a patent right depends on the claims. It is not to discuss whether the liquid moves downward collectively because of the principles of gravity, which makes people misunderstand that the position is “lower,” as Appellant asserted. What is disclosed by the patent applicant in the specification or drawings but not recited in the technical contents of the claims should be considered as what has been contributed to the society and public, so that the patent scope is not considered to cover that. Therefore, Appellee’s arguments related to that are not necessary to consider.

Ordinary and accustomed meaning recognized or understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art