This principle only needs to fully reveal the general idea of invention and creation through the contents of the specification and its drawings, and expand the scope of protection to a certain range around it. As long as the patentability conditions for granting patent rights are met, there is no need for high abstraction and generalization. Therefore, the central restriction principle can be further expanded and supplemented compared with the peripheral restriction principle, which can effectively prevent someone from using the loopholes in patent writing to escape the corresponding legal investigation in patent disputes, which is beneficial to enterprises. However, due to its vague scope of protection, there may be some unfair phenomena to the public, which is difficult to distinguish from it.
Second, the principle of peripheral restriction system
When understanding and interpreting the claims, the principle of perimeter definition can only be carried out in strict accordance with the literal meaning of the claims, and no other extended interpretation is allowed. Although this method can clearly present the scope of patent protection, it also has great risks. Because "word games" are very easy to find, once loopholes appear, they will be in a weak position in patent disputes. Therefore, the requirements for patent applicants or patent agents are extremely high, and patent writing should be considered every word.
Third, the principle of compromise.
The principle of compromise is between the above two. This principle is not limited to "peripheral restrictions" but is completely mechanically subject to word games, and it also cleverly avoids the unfairness and embarrassment that "central restrictions" expand the scope of patent protection to infinity. It is a better way to seek a balance of interests between the patentee and the public. At present, many countries use the eclectic principle to write patents, while China basically adopts the eclectic principle when defining the scope of patent protection.