本文主要通过Psc Computer Products, Inc与Foxconn International, Inc. And Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd一案的争议，讨论捐献原则(disclosure-dedication)的解释。
即，若公开且为明确要求保护的技术特征，满足技术特征特定化以及本领域的普通技术人员可预测，则应当被认定为捐献给公众。
本案的涉案专利为“Cam-Type Retainer Clip for Heat Sinks for Electronic Integrated Circuits” 一种用于电子集成电路的散热器的凸轮型固定夹，其权属为PSC。
本发明的权利要求1为
一种安装在模块中用于电子半导体器件提供冷却的散热器组件，该模块具有与之固定装置，并且该散热器包括水平底表面和导热部分，所述导热部分与位于半导体器件上表面，并且上表面上至少有形成一个通道的翅片结构
一种改进实施例，所述散热器保持夹包括：若干细长的弹性金属带，所述金属带设置于任一所述通道之中;所述任一金属带在的一端设置有与固定装置连接的接合装置，所述金属带非应力状态下，其中心部分在所述散热器底座的上表面为非接触状态;以及凸轮型固定夹，其轴承安装在金属带中心位置……(后略)
In a heat sink assembly providing cooling to an electronic semiconductor device wherein the device is mounted in a module, the module having means for engagement with a retainer clip, and the heat sink having a generally flat bottom surface and heat conducting engagement with the semiconductor device upper surface and a plurality of fins on the upper surface defining at least one channel, the improvement comprising a heat sink retainer clip including:
an elongated, resilient metal strap received in one of the channels of the heat sink having holding means at each end engaging the engagement means on the module, the center portion of the strap spaced a predetermined distance above the upper surface of the heat sink base when the strap is not in tension; and a cam-type latch pivotally mounted in the center portion of the strap and including a cam with a bearing surface……
法院根据相应的比较，认为弹性金属带与凸轮型固定夹为本发明的核心部分，
即，本案的技术核心在于，通过不同的材料对其进行制造则是区分产品的关键所在。
One way that vendors can differentiate their products is by manufacturing these clip parts out of different materials.
与被控侵权专利(权属Foxconn)对比后，其差异为：PSC的选用的材料是金属的，而Foxconn的选用的材料是塑料的。
PSC's clip is made of metal, while Foxconn's clip is made of plastic.
但是Foxconn提出，PSC将塑料这一技术特征作为公开内容向公众提供，Foxconn不构成侵权。
Foxconn, in turn, argued that PSC had dedicated clips with plastic parts to the public, and moved for summary judgment of non-infringement on that ground.
即在说明书中阐述了，“这种弹性金属带应当由具有一定弹性应力的金属制成，包括但不限于不锈钢等，但是其余金属也可以被用作该金属带的原材料”。以及“其余的现有技术设备采用塑料或者其他金属部分那就可能会造成更加高昂的成本”。
In reaching that conclusion, the district court noted the specific language in the written description stating that: "the elongated strap is made of a resilient metal such as stainless steel although other resilient materials may be suitable for the strap," '239 patent, col. 4, ll. 49-51 (emphasis added), and that "other prior art devices use molded plastic and/or metal parts that must be cast or forged which again are more expensive metal forming operations." Id., col. 2. ll. 39-41 (emphasis added).
即，权利要求没有保护“plastic”，而采用了“metal”这一具体的描述。
According to the district court, these passages demonstrate that, at the time that the inventor applied for the '239 patent, he knew that other materials, including plastic, could be used to make "parts" of his invention, and that the inventor asserted the metal design of the '239 patent as an improvement over the prior art. The '239 patent, however, does not claim plastic parts, but instead includes an explicit "metal" limitation. The district court applied Johnson to conclude that the disclosure of unclaimed materials in the '239 patent's written description dedicated those materials to the public. This dedication prevented PSC from using the doctrine of equivalents to extend the scope of its patent claims to include plastic.
通过前述这一点，法院PSC以书面描写并公开了采用塑料制成的技术特征，但是并未将其纳入权利要求的保护范围，这就意味着其将塑料这一技术特征捐献给了公众。因此Foxconn不会被因为使用了使用塑料这一捐献给公众的技术，而被视为等同侵权。
The district court here determined that because the written description of the '239 patent disclosed clips made of plastic parts without claiming plastic, it had dedicated plastic clips to the public. Foxconn, therefore, could not infringe the '239 patent by equivalents because its plastic clips used materials in the public domain.
对于这一理论的合理性
专利这一公开换取保护的规则能够激励专利权人去划定他们认为可专利的最广泛的权利要求，并将这些广泛的权利要求提交给专利商标局进行审查。公开这一专利的重要公共通知功能，通过这种机制，公众了解哪些创新是所要求的发明的主题，哪些是在公共领域。因此，披露-奉献规则既公平又符合公共利益。
捐献原则满足以下两个条件：(1)技术特征特定化，有且只有明确作为某一权利要求声明保护的化合物或物质的替代物在说明书中被特定化披露时，才能视为被捐献。(2)本领域的普通技术人员可预测，通过说明书就可以理解该技术特征已被披露，并且权利要求书中并未对该技术特征明确保护。