Standard

米国での審査における実施可能性、新規性、非自明性の判断基準について

米国での審査通知への回答書において米国代理人が米国審査基準(MPEP)に参照して実施可能性・新規性・非自明性の法律的基準について述べた説明で、原則的な部分を理解する上で参考になるものがありましたので、多少補足を加えた上で、以下に紹介します。参考までに、英語と日本語訳文の両方を併記します。

Legal Standard for Enablement(実施可能性の法律的基準について)

The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without 'undue experimentation'." In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993).(連邦巡回裁判所はたびたび、以下の趣旨の判断を示してきた:「明細書は、当業者が『過度な実験』を行なうことなく本発明の全範囲を実現して使用するための方法を教示しなければならない」)

Nevertheless, not everything necessary to practice the invention need be disclosed. In fact, what is well-known is best omitted. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991).(しかし、発明の実施に必要な全てを開示する必要はない。実際、周知のものは省略しても構わない。)

All that is necessary is that one skilled in the art be able to practice the claimed invention, given the level of knowledge and skill in the art. Further the scope of enablement must only bear a "reasonable correlation" to the scope of the claims. See, e.g., In re Fisher, 427 F.2d 833, 839, 166 USPQ 18, 24 (CCPA 1970).(必要なことは、当業界の知識と技術の水準に鑑みて、クレームされた発明を当業者が実施できるように記載されていることだけである。)

As concerns the breadth of a claim relevant to enablement, the only relevant concern should be whether the scope of enablement provided to one skilled in the art by the disclosure is commensurate with the scope of protection sought by the claims. In re Moore, 439 F.2d 1232, 1236, 169 USPQ 236, 239 (CCPA 1971).(実施可能性との関連におけるクレームの広さについては、明細書の開示により当業者に提供された実施可能性と、クレームが要求する保護の範囲とが一致していさえすればよい。) How a teaching is set forth, by specific example or broad terminology, is not important. In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220, 223-24 169 USPQ 367, 370 (CCPA 1971).(教示の記載の仕方については、どのように記載されていても構わず、具体的実施態様による記載でもよいし、広い用語による記載でもよい。)

Legal Standard for Determining Anticipation(新規性判断の法律的基準について)

"A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).(クレームに記載される全ての要素が明示的または潜在的に単一の先行技術文献に記載されている場合にのみ、クレームの新規性が欠如する。)

"When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (クレームが複数の構造や組成物を含む場合には、複数の構造または複数の組成物のいずれか1でも先行技術文献に記載されているならば、クレームの新規性が欠如する。)

"The identical invention must be shown in as complete detail as is contained in the ... claim." Richardson v. Suzuki Motor Co., 868 F.2d 1226, 1236, 9 USPQ2d 1913, 1920 (Fed. Cir. 1989).(クレームされるものと詳細まで完全に一致する発明が示されていることが必要である)

The elements must be arranged as required by the claim, but this is not an ipsissimis verbis test, i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 15 USPQ2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1990).(クレームが要求する通りに要素が配置されていることが必要であるが、用語が同一である必要はない。)

Legal Standard for Prima Facie Obviousness (一応の自明性の判断の法律的基準について)

MPEP § 2141 sets forth the guidelines in determining obviousness. First, the Examiner has to take into account the factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), which has provided the controlling framework for an obviousness analysis.(MPEP § 2141には、自明性を判断するガイドラインが示されている。審査官は、まず、グラハム事件で採用された事実認定基準(いわゆる、Grahamテスト)を考慮しなければならない。) The four Graham factors are(4つのGrahamテストは以下の通りである):

(a) determining the scope and contents of the prior art(先行技術の範囲と内容を決定すること);

(b) ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims in issue(先行技術と当該クレームとの差を明確にすること);

(c) resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art(当業者の技術水準を確定すること); and

(d) evaluating any evidence of secondary considerations(二次的考慮事項の証拠を評価すること). Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).

Second, the Examiner has to provide some rationale for determining obviousness.(次に審査官は、自明性を支持するための何らかの論理付けを提示することが必要である。) MPEP § 2143 sets forth some rationales that were established in the recent decision of KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (U.S. 2007)(MPEP § 2143には、KSR事件で確立された論理付けが示されている。). Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include(自明性を支持するための典型的な論理付けは以下の通りである。):

(a) combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results(先行技術の要素を公知の方法で組み合わせて予想可能な結果を得ること);

(b) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results(ある公知の要素を他の要素で単純に置換して予想可能な結果を得ること);

(c) use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way(公知技術を用いて類似の装置(方法や製品)を同様に改善すること);

(d) applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results(改善可能な状態にある公知の装置(方法や製品)に公知技術を適用して予想可能な結果を得ること);

(e) "obvious to try" - choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success(「試みることが自明」-成功するという合理的な期待を持って、特定された予測可能な有限個の解決方法から選択すること);

(f) known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art(ある技術分野において公知のものは、設計上の動機やその他の市場の力に基づいて、同じ技術分野や異なる技術分野で使用するためのバリエーションが当業者によって予測可能であれば、そのようなバリエーションを促すかもしれない。); and

(g) some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.(先行技術文献を改変したり先行技術文献の教示を組み合わせてクレームされた発明に到達するように当業者を導いたであろう、先行技術における教示、示唆または動機。)

As the MPEP directs, all claim limitations must be considered in view of the cited prior art in order to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP § 2143.03.(MPEPが示すように、一応の自明性を確立するためには、引用例に鑑みてクレームの全ての限定事項を考慮する必要がある。)

タグ:

米国  クレーム  発明  日本  新規性  記載  必要  明細書  以下  審査  or  be  先行技術  判断  可能  英語  審査官  開示  適用  要求  方法  an  範囲  説明  可能性  not  選択  本発明  with  同様  design  考慮  具体的  日本語  claim  明確  実際  使用  審査通知  同一  特定  公知  先行技術文献  EP  文献  at  技術  one  引用  art  当業者  基準  rce  採用  invention  事件  実験  実施  claims  any  証拠  提供  内容  理解  has  審査基準  prior  非自明性  結果  MPEP  通知  詳細  複数  関連  entity  only  ガイドライン  case  within  solution  決定  参照  代理人  Inter  分野  限定  use  技術分野  other  into  参考  issue  自明性  may  要素  自明  we  should  method  specification  合理的  between  Fed  原則的  事項  results  提示  all  but  right  解決  評価  組成物  類似  must  necessary  same  示唆  用語  趣旨  based  明示的  保護  部分  回答  KSR  obviousness  態様  would  so  欠如  ex  Cir  両方  知識  consideration  practice  製品  required  scope  認定  reasonable  状態  回答書  re  新規性判断  similar  ライン  disclosure  each  end  without  Q2  2d  single  置換  national  教示  完全  Further  identified  法律  装置  公知技術  到達  International  成功  claimed  米国代理人  out  shown  skill  need  周知  一応  example  予測  Ex  USPQ2d  Examiner  期待  skilled  secondary  引用例  either  provide  典型的  当該  テスト  differences  provided  test  裁判所  were  known  very  潜在的  補足  given  some  ep  those  確立  予想  protection  仕方  obtain  structure  make  side  明示  set  ordinary  reason  knowledge  well  include  実施可能  reference  原則  teach  cited  another  difference  device  実施可能性  determining  different  limit  Graham  decision  important  3d  USPQ  動機  her  found  per  elements  element  am  work  whether  apply  technique  product  predictable  実現  支持  term  evidence  enablement  非自明  his  forth  rolling  result  expectation  全範囲  order  事実  紹介  訳文  success  described  disclosed  論理  cover  代理  一致  二次的考慮事項  vice  what  単一  単純  prima  products  contained  composition  require  法律的基準  ratio  改善  Legal  deemed  obvious  number  methods  裁判  act  Second  設計  closed  omitted  less  構造  lines  確定  CCPA  specific  she  facie  facto  field  every  four  due  how  First  技術水準  analysis  devices  予想可能  combine  correlation  組成  certain  exam  established  Federal  How  配置  able  actual  Standard  Obviousness  論理付  view  verbis  variations  show  up  ipsissimis  own  日本語訳  over  多少  now  motivation  support  市場  teaching  take  改変  新規  過度  二次的  予測可能  省略  先行  明細  解決方法  設計上  業界  バリエーション  See  oa  Wright  limitations  account  according  Teleflex  mm  Prima  range  read  rationales  John  relevant  relation  recent  red  framework  fr  full  force  considered  content  hard  considerations  contents  establish  evaluating  everything  ed  experimentation  fact  ip  invent  broad  anticipated  arranged  conclusion  compositions  inherently  All  suggestion  try  Facie  terminology  undue  An  simple  yield  Circuit  sets  several  structures  Deere  way 

Trademarks

Q1. If a trademark application is to be filed in Japan claiming Convention Priority based on a non-Japanese application, is the priority period one year as in patent applications? 

A1.  No. For filing a trademark application in Japan claiming Convention priority, the priority period is six (6) months, instead of one year, from the filing of the priority application. 

Q2. Are there any specific points to be noted for registering a trademark in Japan?

A2.  Some of the points to be noted for registering a trademark in Japan are as follows.

(1)  Goods and services acceptable in Japan:  In the case of trademark registration in Japan via Madrid protocol, the JPO may object to the indications of goods/services in the International Register as being too vague even if they should be acceptable under the NICE Agreement.  This is because the JPO relies on its own list of goods and services as prescribed in the examination standards.  For example, “Apparatus for locomotion by land, air or water” found in the NICE Classifications is not found acceptable by the JPO, and it should be amended to “Aircraft; automobiles; bicycles; motorcycles; rolling stock for railways; ships”.  The amendment of indications is possible as long as it is within the scope of the original Madrid protocol application. 

(2)  Requirement for use of trademark:  A registrable trademark in Japan is a trademark which is being used or which is intended to be used in the near future.  When the range of the goods and services listed in one class is too broad, the trademark will be rejected because the veracity of use or intention of use of the trademark becomes doubtful.

(3)  Registrable subject matter:  Currently, sounds, smells, colors, textures, tastes and movements are not registerable as trademarks in Japan.  (However, the JPO is planning to submit a bill to revise the trademark law to the Japanese Diet in 2013.  So, registration of the mentioned subjects as trademarks may become possible in the near future.)

Q3. Are there any means to accelerate examination of a trademark application in Japan?

A3. Yes.  A request for accelerated examination can be filed anytime after the filing of your trademark application, and the request should be granted as long as the following condition 1 or 2 is met .

Condition 1 : Actual use of trademark and need for quick registration 

You or your licensee is already using your trademark for the goods or services designated in your application, or are preparing to use the trademark, AND

The trademark rights need to be granted urgently due to any one or more of the following reasons:

   1) A third party is using a trademark which is the same or similar to your trademark without authorization from you or your licensee, in connection with designated goods or services that are the same or similar to the goods and services for which you or your licensee has been using the trademark, or for which you or your licensee has prepared to a considerable degree to use the trademark.

   2) A third party has given a warning with respect to the use of your trademark.

   3) A third party is demanding an agreement to their use of your trademark.

   4) You have also applied for the trademark registration at a Patent Office other than the Japan Patent Office (JPO), or to an intergovernmental organization.

Condition 2:  Use of trademark only for designated goods or services

Your application designates only the goods and services for which you or your licensee is already using the trademark or you or your licensee is preparing to use the trademark.

Q4. What are the documents necessary for filing a request for accelerated examination for a trademark application in Japan? 

A4.  A document entitled "Explanation of the Circumstances Concerning Accelerated Examination” should be filed together with evidence(s) showing that the above-mentioned Condition 1 or 2 is fulfilled by the trademark application. 

Q5. What are the specifics of the individual fee system for a trademark registration via Madrid Protocol designating Japan. 

A5.  The JPO has adopted an individual fee consisting of two parts in accordance with Rule 34(3)(a) of the Common Regulations under the Madrid Protocol.

First part of the individual fee:  This corresponds to an application fee, and is paid at the time of international registration or the subsequent designation. 

Second part of the individual fee:  This corresponds to a registration fee, and is paid within the prescribed period mentioned in the notification issued with the Notice of Grant.  Failure of payment results in cancellation of the designation of Japan in the international registration.

Both fees are to be paid directly to the International Bureau of the WIPO.

タグ:

application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  JPO  Patent  Japanese  not  filing  with  design  filed  claim  period  Office  Examination  at  one  art  after  any  Notice  has  grant  prior  applications  request  above  examination  file  only  been  case  within  Inter  trademark  use  other  issue  IP  may  months  will  system  priority  we  more  documents  should  under  than  mentioned  results  right  non  law  Act  services  necessary  also  same  amendment  inter  third  there  based  A2  go  A1  consisting  Prior  Rule  agreement  so  ex  Cir  possible  rights  following  What  Grant  time  registration  scope  even  re  fee  granted  month  similar  end  without  However  Q2  Q1  party  national  accelerated  prepared  using  issued  International  long  claiming  out  international  two  need  subject  state  example  because  Ex  Accelerated  Yes  used  WIPO  their  do  year  Q3  A3  water  respect  follows  given  goods  ep  original  matter  side  reason  reasons  Q4  designated  applied  document  directly  Reg  condition  being  A4  licensee  warning  becomes  they  rejected  her  found  per  see  good  am  parts  its  acceptable  evidence  his  rolling  result  gov  noted  notification  payment  paid  designating  together  via  vice  preparing  degree  individual  Madrid  ratio  amended  accordance  become  Second  place  listed  part  six  specific  entitled  Convention  showing  fees  due  how  First  service  connection  ended  exam  How  Condition  Concerning  already  able  amend  instead  show  means  own  over  reject  near  trademarks  submit  indication  oa  note  Some  Re  Priority  Protocol  Q5  Regulations  man  list  low  mm  Use  range  quick  read  protocol  registering  red  planning  point  points  NICE  prescribed  fr  fulfilled  future  considerable  corresponds  ed  designation  doubt  ip  automobiles  automobile  broad  indications  Agreement  Failure  A5  Classification  way 


お問い合わせ

Share | rss
ホームページ制作