Welcome to the website of Inoue & Associates

Introductory Statement

Inoue & Associates (located within 1 minute walk from the Japan Patent Office) is an intellectual property (IP) firm having more than 35 years of experience in international IP business.

We are a modest-sized IP firm composed of members each having profound knowledge about the legal aspect of IP and the technologies involved therein as well as excellent skill in actual IP practice, such that high quality services can be offered constantly at a reasonable price.  Each one of our staff members is so trained as to be able to always provide high quality IP-related services including production of documents having a clear and logical construction whether they are in English or Japanese and irrespective of urgency or technical difficulties involved in particular cases.

Over the years, we have built up a solid reputation for our ability to efficiently acquire and protect IP rights in Japan.

We are confident that we can provide higher quality IP services than any other IP firms in Japan.

Features of Inoue & Associates

For acquiring and protecting patent rights, everything starts from the claims and specification of a patent application or a granted patent.  Whether a patent application can be granted with a desired protective scope or a granted patent can survive the challenge from a third party depends utterly on how good the claims and specification have been drafted in the first place.

Invalidation of patents, unexpectedly narrow scope of protection, defeat in infringement suit … all such undesired outcome could have been avoided only if the patent application had been better drafted. 

In the case of Japanese patent applications filed by non-Japanese entities, the claims and specification are usually translations from the non-Japanese texts of the first filed foreign applications or PCT applications. 

From this perspective, the translation of the patent claims and specification is actually more than just a translation and is practically tantamount to the preparation of a legal document which serves as a basis for seeking patent protection.  For this reason, the translation should be done with utmost care by IP professionals such as experienced patent attorneys or paralegals

And that is what we do and is not done by most of the IP firms in Japan


Problems related to traditional way of handling patent applications from outside Japan

In typical Japanese IP firms, applications from foreign clients are handled by a team of an IP professional (a patent attorney or a paralegal) and a translator. For example, the translation of a PCT specification for the Japan national phase entry is often carried out by one who is the least experienced in the IP firm or even by an outside translator.

The IP professions work on legal matters based on the translations prepared by translators which are not always so good or of a rather poor quality in many cases. This manner of handling patents is disadvantageous not only from the aspect of efficiency but also from the aspect of cost because poor translations of course make the entire procedure unnecessarily complicated and high translation fees are required even if the translations are not so good. Such inefficient and problematic practice as mentioned above has become customary because many Japanese IP professionals are not good at writing in English or even reading English documents, and the English-to-Japanese translations are generally assigned to beginners.

Consequently, many Japanese IP professionals have to rely on poor translations in their works, thus falling into a vicious cycle. It is not surprising even if patent applications from foreign clients are handled by those who do not fully understand what is disclosed in the original specification nor the clients’ instructions given in English during the prosecution of the application. For years, this has been a serious problem as far as the patent applications from outside Japan are concerned.

Our Solution

Such problems as mentioned above will never happen in the case of Inoue & Associates. Every one of our staff members has gone through very hard training and long actual experience to acquire ability to handle the IP cases alone from drafting patent specifications whether they are in Japanese or English to dealing with various procedures relating to patent applications or registered patents. We do not need and actually do not use any translator. Even in the case of foreign patent applications (in US, EP etc.) filed by Japanese applicants through our firm, the US or European patent attorneys often use our draft documents without any substantial change. That is, the documents drafted by Inoue & Associates as such are often submitted to the USPTO or the EPO.

There is no magic formula for acquiring good IP rights. This can be achieved only by hard work and skill obtainable through long and rich experience as always required in any fields for realizing high quality services.

Inoue & Associates is one of the very limited number of Japanese IP firms capable of constantly offering high quality IP services at a reasonable price. There has been and will be no compromise in the quality of services we provide to our clients and, for this very reason, we have been trusted by many foreign clients as well as domestic clients.

Our skill in IP business is highly esteemed by our clients including two famous Japanese professors emeriti, Dr. Nobuatsu Watanabe and Dr. Hidefumi Hirai, whose recommendations are shown in this web site. Further, if requested, we will be able to show you copies of some letters from various US and EP attorneys praising our abilities.

Our highly-skilled staff members will surely be of great help to your establishment of strong and valuable intellectual property portfolio while reducing cost.

If you are not sure, try us and we promise that we will never fall short of your expectations. You will immediately realize that we are dedicated to efficient acquisition and protection of your valuable intellectual properties and have skills to achieve this goal.


PCT  EPO  application  or  be  patent  USPTO  Japan  an  Patent  Japanese  not  with  filed  claim  Office  EP  at  one  art  claims  any  has  grant  applications  request  above  file  only  been  case  within  such  use  other  into  IP  Statement  phase  will  European  we  more  documents  should  under  specification  than  mentioned  related  all  but  right  problem  having  non  services  We  also  inter  through  third  there  registered  based  go  patents  translations  applicant  so  excellent  ex  about  high  rights  practice  foreign  technical  required  scope  reasonable  even  re  fee  granted  years  each  end  without  Inoue  legal  party  business  English  national  Further  form  prepared  cases  etc  long  general  out  shown  including  international  skill  two  first  need  quality  properties  example  because  many  skilled  during  prosecution  provide  amount  their  least  do  year  Associates  very  clients  substantial  usually  respect  firm  given  translation  some  experience  ep  Intellectual  those  protection  clear  carried  obtain  original  Problem  make  matter  Property  side  efficiency  reason  knowledge  well  had  infringement  who  document  Solution  staff  construction  cost  limit  course  therein  Such  country  basis  production  they  outside  various  her  specifications  found  firms  per  applicants  see  good  am  poor  work  always  website  whether  product  attorneys  property  entry  intellectual  drafted  his  herein  expectation  limited  often  nor  members  disclosed  could  submitted  thus  understand  valid  web  vice  what  instruction  require  reading  ratio  ability  become  number  actually  act  place  closed  located  There  part  particular  care  specific  surely  far  fees  field  start  every  draft  how  highly  service  aspect  fields  desired  complicated  entire  concerned  change  capable  exam  done  Invalidation  Consequently  Trademark  Trade  advantage  able  acquire  actual  Services  valuable  late  requested  unexpected  instructions  short  show  serious  up  involved  isa  own  professionals  professional  problems  procedure  practically  minute  protecting  now  most  skills  immediately  texts  fully  handling  handled  submit  help  translator  solid  never  oa  State  abilities  man  advantageous  acquiring  logical  mm  Watanabe  manner  rather  read  Hirai  Hidefumi  red  professor  procedures  protective  price  Nobuatsu  fr  full  depends  generally  constantly  higher  hard  great  experienced  efficiently  establish  entities  everything  esteemed  ed  domestic  ip  avoided  attorney  Dr  Each  suit  try  trusted  Even  Every  rich  surprising  An  site  works  signed  way  while  utmost  trained  reputation 


意見書などで発明の効果を主張する場合に重要なことがあります。日本の審査では、明細書に記載されておらず、かつ、明細書又は図面の記載から当業者が推論できない効果については、意見書や実験証明書などで主張しても考慮されません(審査基準第II部 第2章 2.5、(3)、②参照)。具体的には、日本の審査基準には、以下のように述べられています。




その判断基準の参考になる判例の1つが平成17年(行ケ)10389号 審決取消請求事件(解熱鎮痛消炎剤事件)です。この事件における本願発明は、エテンザミドとトラネキサム酸を含有する解熱鎮痛消炎剤です。この事件の重要争点が、明細書における発明の顕著な効果の記載の有無であり、出願人は、「エテンザミドとトラネキサム酸との併用による顕著な効果は当初明細書に記載されている」という旨を主張しましたが、審決取り消し訴訟においてもその主張は認められませんでした。つまり、出願後に出願人が実験証明した効果について、「出願当時の明細書に明記はされておらず、また、明細書の記載から読み取る(推論する)ことも出来きない」という判断がなされたものです。この事件の判決では、本願明細書の記載を引用しつつ、上記争点について以下のように述べています(該判決の第4(「当裁判所の判断」)、3、(3)参照)。

「(3) もっとも,本願明細書には,上記のように,『本発明に用いられるサリチル酸系抗炎症剤としては・・・エテンザミドが特に好ましい。』(段落【0005】)との記載があり,さらに,『【0015】表1より,エテンザミド50mg/kg及びトラネキサム酸200mg/kg単独での抑制率は,それぞれ10%及び14%であり,両薬剤とも軽度の抑制作用が認められた。一方,両薬剤を併用投与した場合の抑制率は56%であり,対照群との間に有意差が認められた。また,この作用をバルジの方法にて検討したところ,併用投与群の相対指数(0.44)は,各単独投与群の相対指数の積(0.77)よりも小さく,併用による相乗効果が認められた。【0016】表2より,エテンザミド100mg/kgおよびトラネキサム酸50mg/kgを併用した場合の抑制率は42%であり,対照群との間に有意差が認められた。また,この作用をバルジの方法にて検討したところ,併用投与群の相対指数(0.58)は,各単独投与群の相対指数の積(0.83)よりも小さく,併用による相乗効果が認められた。』との記載がある。


米国においては、当初明細書に記載のない新たな効果を主張することについては特に制限がなく、有効に主張できます(In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 299, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995)、MPEP 2145)。(ただし、そのような議論や実験データを提出する場合には、37 C.F.R. § 1.132に基づく宣誓供述書の形式で提出しないと考慮されない可能性が高いので要注意です。)

EPOにおいては、当初明細書に記載のない新たな効果については、「当初明細書に示唆される技術的課題に含意される(implied by)効果または該技術的課題と関連する(related to)効果」であると当業者が認識する効果であれば、基本的には有効に主張できます(EPOの審査基準のC_IV_11.5.2参照)。

一方、上記判例と対照的な内容の判例を以下に挙げます。「実施例の後出し」が認められた判決として良く話題に上る平成21年(行ケ)第10238号 審決取消請求事件(日焼け止め剤組成物事件)の判決においては、正確にいえば、出願後に出願人が実験証明書で示した効果について、「出願当時の明細書に明記はされていないが、明細書の記載から読み取る(推論する)ことが出来る」という判断がなされたものです。上記の平成17年(行ケ)10389号 審決取消請求事件(解熱鎮痛消炎剤事件)の上記引用判決文との対比のために、参考までに、平成21年(行ケ)第10238号 審決取消請求事件(日焼け止め剤組成物事件)の判決文の要所を下記に引用いたします。


「前記のとおり,本願当初明細書には,『現在,驚くべきことに,本組成物が優れた安定性(特に光安定性),有効性,及び紫外線防止効果(UVA及びUVBのいずれの防止作用を含めて)を,・・・提供することが見出されている。』(甲3,段落【0011】),『好ましい有機性日焼け止め剤活性種は2-フェニル-ベンズイミダゾール-5-スルホン酸である』(甲3,段落【0025】)と記載されているから,当業者は,UVBフィルターとして『2-フェニル-ベンズイミダゾール-5-スルホン酸』を含み,他の特定成分と組み合わせた本願発明の組成物が優れた紫外線防止効果を有することを理解し,各組成成分の和を超えた相乗効果をも奏し得るであろうことを理解することができるといえる」 (該判決の第4(「当裁判所の判断」)、2、(4)、エの第2段落を参照)

平成17年(行ケ)第10389号 審決取消請求事件(解熱鎮痛消炎剤事件)の判決文と、平成21年(行ケ)第10238号 審決取消請求事件(日焼け止め剤組成物事件)の判決文とを比較・検討することにより、明細書において本発明の効果について最低限どれくらい明確に記載しておく必要があるのかについてのおおよその目安が得られるのではないかと考えます。

なお、上記平成21年(行ケ)第10238号 審決取消請求事件(日焼け止め剤組成物事件)の判決では、「明細書に『発明の効果」について何らの記載がない場合に出願後に実験結果等を提出して効果を主張又は立証することが許されるべきではない」ことの理由に関する理論的考察が述べられています(該判決の第4(「当裁判所の判断」)、1、(1)参照)。日本の審査基準における「意見書等で主張された効果の参酌」の説明の趣旨を理解するうえで参考になりますので、その要点を以下に示します:





特許  米国  出願  発明  日本  記載  提出  必要  EPO  進歩性  明細書  上記  以下  審査  効果  or  先願  判断  可能  宣誓供述書  出願人  比較  審査官  主張  開示  データ  実施例  方法  an  範囲  説明  可能性  成分  請求  制度  出来  検討  制限  本発明  考慮  理由  具体的  明確  特定  EP  先願主義  at  意見書  技術  第三者  引用  当業者  基準  採用  事件  注意  重要  10  実験  実施  補充  提供  内容  理解  審査基準  有効  結果  判決  観点  EP  MPEP  現在  図面  判例  形式  関連  www  課題  参照  出願後  II  平成  参考  判断基準  訴訟  証明  特許権  以外  基本的  手段  pdf  EPO  under  顕著  立証  特許制度  Fed  議論  related  提示  解決  組成物  示唆  趣旨  go  程度  態様  20  jpo  ex  Cir  明記  有効性  有利  正確  認識  下記  re  25  Q2  2d  15  投与  意見  抑制  関係  後出  参酌  防止  解決手段  USPQ2d  有無  ii  審決取消請求事件  宣誓  00  見出  裁判所  エテンザミド  取消  実験証明書  引用発明  考察  21  102  話題  本願明細書  比較実験  格別  50  技術的課題  推論  供述書  作用  安定  11  3d  USPQ  当初明細書  トラネキサム  進歩  実験結果等  段落  当初  ku  判決文  剤組成物事件  最終  争点  日焼  併用  17  10238  意見書等  サリチル  審査基準第  実験結果  宣誓供述  単独  相乗効果  100  目安  ratio  酸系抗炎症剤  相対指数  最低限  VII  mg  本願当初明細書  本願発明  裁判  該判決  kg  103  当裁判所  技術的  付与  主張又  組成  下線  主義  解熱鎮痛消炎剤事件  16  10389  14  要請  late  抑制率  対照的  対比  審決  明細書又  実験証明  有機  前記  出願当時  当時  UVB  II  対照群  0015  0005  0016  02  両薬剤  紫外線防止効果  公平  併用投与群  明細  要点  要所  スルホン  各単独投与群  上記判決  バルジ  薬剤  有意差  ベンズイミダゾール  フェニル  ed  shiryou 

Design Registration

Q1. If a design 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 design applications in Japan claiming Convention priority, the priority period is for six (6) months, instead of one year, from the filing of the priority application.  Even if you have a design "patent" application filed at the USPTO, the priority period is 6 months for filing a Japanese patent application with a valid priority claim based on the degisn "patent" application filed in the US.  

You also have to be careful when filing a patent application in Japan claiming priority from both a patent application and a design application.  That is, for example, if you filed in your country a patent application on May 1, 2012 and a design application on October 30, 2012 and are now considering filing a patent application on May 1, 2013 in Japan claiming priority from both of the above-mentioned patent application and design application filed in your country, this date “May 1, 2013” is within one-year priority period based on the patent application but is after the expiration of six-month priority period (October 30, 2012 + 6 months = April 40, 2013) based on the design application.  Therefore, the priority claim based on the design application is not valid.  

Q2. I am planning to file a design patent application in Japan claiming priority from a US design patent application.  What are the major differences in practice between the United States and Japan that require particular attention?

A2.  Firstly, unlike the “design patent” in the United States which is one type of patents and is basically dealt with under the patent law, Japan has a design law separate from a patent law. 

Therefore, in Japan, an application for registration of a design is referred to as “design application”, not “design patent application” as in the United States.  

More importantly, this difference in legal system leads to some significant differences in design registration practice between the US and Japan representative examples of which are enumerated below.

Difference 1)  “Single design per application” system in Japan

It is understood that the US system allows an applicant to pursue two or more designs (embodiments) of a single inventive concept in a single design patent application.  This, however, is not the case in Japan.  According to the Japanese practice, each design application may include only a single design of single shape.

Therefore, in Japan, when a single priority application includes multiple designs, it is necessary to either:

-  file separate design applications with respect to the different designs, or

-  file an application including different designs and later file a divisional application(s).

In this connection, however, it should be noted that it is not allowed to file a divisional application on a “partial” design from a “whole” design application and vice versa.  Concerning the “partial” and “whole” designs, explanations are made below.

Further, there is an exception to the "single design per application" system, and the Japan's Design Law provides "related design" system for covering a plurality of similar designs.

1-1) Exception to the “single design per application” rule

The Japan’s Design Law exceptionally allows for discrete objects to be claimed in a single application if common sense indicates that such discrete objects are usually sold as a “set”, as in the case of, for example, a 3-piece set including a knife, fork and spoon. 

1-2) Related design applications

In the case where the priority US application contains a plurality of different but similar designs (e.g., minor variations of a certain design), such similar designs may be covered by utilizing the related design system in Japan.  Specifically, the similar designs can be covered by filing a principal design application and filing a related design application(s) by one day prior to the publication of the principal design. 

The design registered as the related design can be enforced independently of the registered principal design and other registered related design(s).  That is, a related design right can cover even a design similar to that related design, which, however, is not similar to the principal design. 

For covering such similar designs under the related design regime, it is possible to either:

-  file a principal design application and also file a related design application(s) simultaneously with the principal application or later (by one day prior to the publication of the principal design at the latest), or

-  file general design applications on the similar designs, and later amend the general applications into a principal design application and a related design application(s).

The JPO may find that the designs are not similar enough to be eligible for registration under the related design regime but there is no need to be so nervous about this point.  If the JPO denies the similarity, the JPO will issue an office action requesting the applicant to stop relying on the related design system and change the applications to normal applications.


Finally, the right of a registered related design is independent from the right of a registered principal design but there are the following exceptions.

1.   Synchronized protection term: 

The protection term for both of a registered principal design and a registered related design is 20 years from the registration date of the principal design.  This point, however, is substantially immaterial in the present case because the two applications will probably be registered almost simultaneously.  Further, the registered related design can be maintained even if the principal design is allowed to lapse due to non-payment of maintenance fee, and vice versa.   

 2.   Restriction of transfer of rights and licensing: 

The right of a registered related design cannot be transferred or licensed independently from the registered principal design.  That is, for transfer of design rights to a third party by assignment etc., the principal and related designs must be simultaneously transferred together to the same entity.  Further, also for licensing, the principal and related designs must be licensed simultaneously to the same entity.


Difference 2)  Partial Design System

The Japan’s Design Law has a “partial design system” which allows registration of parts of shapes or forms with distinct characteristics.  

The US system also provides a similar practice where dotted lines can be used to indicate non-claimed parts.  There is, however, one important difference.  That is, the Japan’s system requires that a partial design application should be filed with a clear indication that the application claims a partial design.  In the absence of such indication, the application will be recognized as claiming a whole design. 

Once filed with the indication of a partial design application, it is in principle not allowed to amend the application into a whole design application and vice versa.  Similarly, a divisional application on a partial design cannot be filed from a whole design application and vice versa. 

Therefore, if it is important to cover both of whole and partial designs, it is recommended to file both a whole design application and a partial design application.


Of course, there are many other differences between US and Japanese practices; however, the above differences are believed to be the main differences which require particular attention when filing a design application in Japan claiminig priority from a US design patent application.


application  or  be  patent  USPTO  Japan  an  JPO  Japanese  not  filing  with  design  filed  Final  claim  period  action  date  at  one  art  rce  present  after  claims  any  has  prior  applications  office  request  above  file  entity  only  case  within  such  use  other  into  divisional  issue  pace  may  months  will  system  priority  we  more  should  under  between  made  mentioned  related  all  but  right  non  law  must  necessary  also  same  third  there  registered  based  A2  A1  patents  applicant  Prior  type  both  so  designs  ex  about  possible  rights  practice  following  What  registration  principal  even  re  fee  month  publication  similar  years  each  end  Q2  Q1  single  legal  party  Design  cannot  April  Further  form  principle  etc  Therefore  claiming  claimed  general  out  including  rule  simultaneously  two  need  Law  whole  United  public  example  because  Ex  many  covered  either  provide  used  allowed  differences  Part  do  year  referred  test  States  partial  substantial  plurality  usually  respect  some  where  ep  protection  clear  later  side  set  independent  main  include  material  who  like  expiration  distinct  difference  Restriction  different  considering  course  country  basic  below  important  her  per  however  am  parts  inventive  term  his  nor  noted  payment  cover  together  understood  valid  vice  versa  indicates  require  ratio  attention  allow  act  place  There  part  particular  lines  care  six  Convention  substantially  due  how  First  believed  connection  day  ended  certain  change  exam  May  According  Concerning  allows  Specifically  October  amend  late  variations  representative  maintenance  requires  instead  shape  separate  over  minor  now  most  indication  objects  note  State  Re  Priority  maintained  major  absence  man  licensed  licensing  low  mm  Unit  provides  regime  recognized  red  planning  point  practices  More  fr  force  covering  eligible  except  examples  ed  discrete  find  ip  invent  assignment  believe  almost  independently  indicate  characteristics  utilizing  try  Even  sold  Difference  transferred  transfer  requesting  Finally  Firstly  relying 

Utility Models

Q1. What are the differences between a patent and a utility model in Japan? 

A1.  The utility model system in Japan like in other countries having this system is for protecting minor innovations which are often called “small inventions”.

The distinct features of the utility model system are:  

     that a utility model registration is only for protecting “devices” related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (in other words, other inventions, such as methods, chemical compounds and pharmaceuticals, cannot be protected under utility model act);

     that a utility model is registered without substantive examination; and

     that a duration of a registered utility model is only 10 years from the filing date of the utility model application.

Differences between a patent and a utility model are summarized in the following Table.

  Patent Utility Model
Subject of protection Devices, methods, chemical compounds, etc. Devices related to shape or construction of articles or combination of articles (Methods, chemical compounds, etc. cannot be protected)
Application documents required Specification including Claims and Abstract; and, if any, Drawing(s) (optional) Specification including Claims and Abstract; and Drawing(s) (not omissible)
Substantive examination Request for Examination must be filed within 3 years from the filing date No substantive examination; Registered when basic formal requirements are fulfilled
Time period required for registration Possibly, several years from filing of the Request for Examination About 4-6 months from the filing date
Duration of protection 20 years from the filing date (may be extended in some cases) 10 years from the filing date (non-extensible)
Enforcement of right Enforceable based on granted patent Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion” is necessary for enforcing the utility model right


Q2. What is a “Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion”?

A2.  The Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion is an assessment report about the registrability (novelty, inventive step, etc.) of a utility model application or a registered utility model.  This report is prepared by an Examiner of the Japan Patent Office upon request and payment of official fees.  Anyone (that is, not only the Applicant of the utility model, but also any third party) can validly file a request for the Report.

As explained in item “A1” above, a utility model is registered without a substantive examination.  In this connection, for an owner of a utility model to enforce the utility model right against an infringer, firstly, a warning accompanied by the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion must be sent to the infringer.  Therefore, the above-mentioned Report is necessary for instituting an infringement suit in Japan.

Q3. Is it possible to convert a patent application into a utility model application?

A3.  Yes.  Conversion of a patent application into a utility model application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 months (for Applicants residing in Japan) or 4 months (for Applicants residing outside Japan) from the mailing date of the Decision for Rejection, or within nine years and six months from the filing date of the patent application, whichever expires earlier.  Such a converted utility model application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original patent application, and the original patent application is deemed to be withdrawn.

Q4. Is it possible to convert a utility model application into a patent application?

A4.  Yes.  Conversion of a utility model application (or a registered utility model resulting therefrom) into a patent application is allowed if an appropriate step is taken within 3 years from the filing date of the utility model application.  However, it should be noted that such conversion is not allowed after the applicant (or an assignee) has filed a request for the above-mentioned Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion, or after a 30-day period has passed from the date of a first official notice advising that a third party has filed a request for the Report of Utility Model Technical Opinion.  Such a converted patent application is entitled to the benefit of the filing date of the original utility model application, and the original utility model application is deemed to be withdrawn.  (Such a converted patent application cannot be converted back into a utility model application.)


application  or  be  patent  Japan  an  Patent  not  filing  with  filed  period  Office  date  Examination  at  Request  one  art  rce  invention  after  any  has  grant  request  above  examination  utility  Rejection  epo  file  report  only  case  within  such  other  into  may  months  model  system  we  documents  should  method  under  between  mentioned  related  all  but  right  small  having  non  must  necessary  also  Decision  third  Report  there  registered  Application  based  A2  requirement  A1  applicant  step  against  Utility  so  ex  about  possible  following  What  registration  required  re  fee  granted  month  years  end  without  residing  However  Q2  Q1  party  cannot  Applicant  form  Applicants  prepared  cases  etc  Therefore  out  including  first  Technical  Ex  Examiner  Yes  allowed  differences  do  year  Q3  A3  conversion  requirements  formal  Method  some  ep  articles  protection  benefit  original  side  upon  Claim  infringement  like  Model  Q4  Opinion  article  document  distinct  difference  Reg  construction  A4  device  assignee  warning  Specification  combination  Such  country  basic  countries  notice  outside  extended  her  per  Table  am  inventions  item  inventive  Claims  back  his  result  often  order  nor  noted  novelty  payment  converted  valid  vice  words  compounds  require  ratio  deemed  ability  appropriate  methods  allow  adding  act  place  official  There  part  six  entitled  feature  fees  explained  extensible  devices  connection  day  ended  cells  exam  chemical  How  Subject  able  late  shape  up  own  omissible  minor  protected  protecting  novel  substantive  therefrom  taken  take  note  Re  mailing  accompanied  low  mm  red  passed  Mode  fr  fulfilled  force  convert  ed  earlier  invent  infringer  called  validly  Abstract  Drawing  Dr  suit  try  An  withdrawn  Conversion  Devices  several  Any  Difference 


Share | rss